Preamble

The House met al Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Determination of quotas of British films.)

11.6 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "three," and to insert "six."
This Amendment gives effect to the promise made during the Committee stage that we would lengthen the period from three to six months, and I hope in view of the fact that we had the discussion in the Committee stage, and that this promise was given and is now being implemented, the House will agree to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert:
and that the percentages prescribed therein for each of the purposes hereinbefore mentioned shall not be less than the percentages prescribed by the order to be made under Subsection (1) of this Section.
The object of this Amendment is to raise the same point which was raised during the Committee stage in order to give more security about the quotas which will apply to the production and exhibition of British films. I understand that the probable reason why the Government, after consideration, rejected the previous Amendment on this matter was because it was generally thought that there might be many defaults if the percentage of 35 per cent. were now applied to British

films. I do not think there is any particular reason why that percentage should have been rejected, because the Films Council would naturally take into account the fact that the percentage could not be filled owing to the shortage of films, and I do not see that any particular harm would be done.
If that is the reason which has impelled the Government to reject the Amendment, I suggest that the new Amendment represents a reasonable compromise, and that it would have the effect, when the quota is fixed by the Board of Trade later on this year, that the makers of British films could be assured that that percentage of the quota would be the minimum during the life of the Act. I suggest very strongly that, when the Bill goes to another place, this Amendment might be incorporated in it, because it will give that extra security, both to those now engaged in the production of British films and also to the capital which may be risked in the future, that the percentage will not fall below the minimum which the Board of Trade fixes when the time comes.

Mr. Belcher: I must resist this Amendment. The House is conversant with the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends during the Committee stage, and I do not see that it is necessary to go to any great length in stating the case against it. It is that, while we hope that the number of films produced in this country will steadily increase, and while my right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that he will, year by year, raise the quota according to the number of films available, we cannot predict with any certainty what is going to happen in future. We may fix a figure for this year, and it may well be that, for two or three years, the production of films will increase, so that the quota can be increased accordingly. We do not know that, at some time in the future, something quite unpredictable may not happen.
For instance, the number of films available may be insufficient to enable the exhibitor to meet his quota. Therefore, we do not want to tie ourselves in the way suggested by the Amendment. In any case, the putting of a figure into this Bill would not guarantee the production of a single extra film. It would simply place an obligation on the exhibitors, who have always claimed, with good reason, that


they ought to have some guarantee that the figure imposed upon them by the Board of Trade should be capable of being met out of the production resources of the country. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject this Amendment, and will leave us free to fix the quota according to the number of films available.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary has, of course, a certain basis in reality, but when he says that the Government are going to inform the trade, from year to year of the increased numbers that will be available, I should have thought that would have compelled him to accept this Amendment. Surely, the one thing the producer wants to have is some platform on which to build the whole of his business for the coming year. We listened to what was said during the Debate on the Committee stage, and we have substituted the idea that when the Films Council has examined the matter, and, after examination, has fixed the minimum number for the first year, that shall be regarded as permanent. To talk, as we heard, of increasing the number of studios, surely presupposes that we shall not go back; that, after this scheme has started, we shall not have less films. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider his decision, and to regard this as a sort of solid factor in a world of otherwise complete conjecture.

Mr. Collins: I hope my hon. Friend will look at this matter again because it appears to me to be a very reasonable and desirable proposition, not from the point of view of the exhibitor, but from that of the producer. A very substantial section of the industry cannot begin to plan at all until they know, with some reasonable degree of security, exactly what proportion of the market they can hope to share. I am thinking, particularly, of the smaller film-making units to whom this particular question is a matter of life or death. Percentages of quota are mentioned in the Clause, and I hope that the Board of Trade will give consideration to different percentages for different sections of the industry. After all, one must be assessed on a footage basis, and that matter should also be considered.
I entirely subscribe to the view that we should now be considering a minimum, in the hope that we can use that as a starting point for further development. In my view, the Parliamentary Secretary did not answer that point. During the discussion on the Committee stage, we accepted the view, which he put forward with great cogency, that to write a percentage into the Bill now might prove to be a handicap. But, surely, it cannot prove to be a handicap in future if we agree that the figure, or figures, of the quota eventually decided upon, on the recommendation of the Films Council, should be regarded as a starting point, and not as a maximum.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Benn Levy: This argument, which has been put forward on both stages of the Bill, seems to me to be based on a complete fallacy. It is based on the notion that to fix a quota now, or, at least, to fix a minimum quota, will provide some degree of security and encouragement to producers. Surely, that argument has no basis at all? Let us follow it to its logical conclusion in concrete terms, and not think just in terms of vague quotas, but in terms of what those quotas will mean. Suppose, for example, that the quota is fixed for 100 films a year—that the percentage quota translated into films is 100 a year—does the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment really suppose that, to know that the quota is 100 films, is going to afford security for producers? It can only afford security for producers if the individual producer not only knows that there are 100 films to be exhibited, but also knows that there are not 101 films in production or planned for production, because, unless he knows that, he does not know that he is not going to be the 101st. There, again, we come back to the old point, that the only real security which the producer can have is the guarantee that his film will be shown. From that point of view, the actual size of the quota is irrelevant.
I feel that my hon. Friend has really a complete case when he rejects this Amendment, because all it does—for no good reason so far established—is to bind him in the future to say that, in no circumstances, whatever they may be, and however unforeseeable, will it be possible to reduce the quota below the first figure.


He has already given a general assurance. After all, there may be unforeseeable factors, and it seems to me perfectly reasonable that he should allow himself that loophole.

Mr. Lyttelton: I must reply to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), which seems to be of the most curious description. He says that, if we guarantee that 100 British films shall be produced, the only security given to the producer is that he would know he was making the 100th film, and not the 101st. But that is not the point. The point is that the producer of films, or somebody about to undertake the production of films, would be in a greater position of security to plan if he knew that the quota could not fall below a certain percentage. That is absolutely obvious to anybody. It does not give a guarantee; nobody suggests that it does, but it does, at any rate, give the exhibitor reason to believe that he is likely to have his film exhibited. Under the Bill as now drafted, there is absolutely no platform, other than the extraordinary assurance given by the President of the Board of Trade that he would guarantee that the film quota would never go down. As we pointed out on the Committee stage, that is subject to the Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and it was largely on that point that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary took flight from the position they had previously taken up. The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough has no substance at all.

Mr. Levy: Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. The argument which the right hon. Gentleman is affecting to answer is not really the argument I made. Surely, he will accept the position that there is no security in knowing that there are 100 films in the quota unless it is also known that 200 films are not being planned for production. As all the manufacturers ire not—

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that we are on the Report stage, and that this Bill was not considered in Committee upstairs. I had forgotten that. Therefore, a second speech by the right hon. Gentleman was out of Order.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary provisions as to quotas.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 25, after "period," insert:
or in the first six months of any quota period."—[Mr. Belcher.]

Mr. Scott-Elliot: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, after "A", to insert "short".
This Amendment can be taken together with the Amendment, in line 35, after "foot", to insert:
and a long film of which the total labour costs are less than thirty shillings per foot.
As was shown in the previous discussion, the present figure represents a retreat from the 1938 Act. That Act laid down a minimum cost of £15,000 per film. If we take a 5,000 foot film, the figure works out at approximately 30s. per foot labour cost. Why has this retreat taken place? My right hon. Friend said that he had been recommended to put in these figures by the Films Council, but it has since been discovered that there was a misunderstanding. I have in my possession a copy of the letter written to my right hon. Friend by a member of the Films Council stating that this was not the case. The Films Council recommended that there should be a 10s. minimum in respect of all short and documentary films. They were at that time unable to determine what should be the higher figure, but they postulated a higher figure in respect of second feature films. I think there is an overwhelming case for this figure of 30s.
If American films are to be shut out from this country, there is obviously going to be a great incentive to produce British films, but if the minimum cost figure is reduced even for a short period—and I feel that it can be reduced only for a short period—it will encourage the industry to produce a large number of films, sacrificing quality for quantity. In these circumstances, I ask my right hon. Friend once again to consider this matter, and if he is unable to accept this Amendment, I ask him to consult the Films Council on this as a matter of urgency, so that before the Bill is discussed in another place, he will be in a position to table an Amendment.

Mr. Collins: I beg to second the Amendment.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): It is quite true that there has been some misunderstanding about this matter by the Films Council. It cannot be said, however, that any agreed view was reached by the Council on this matter. I think that the position is still the same as I explained when we last considered this. The position is that we have taken powers to prescribe a different and higher figure in the case of these films, and I have already given assurance that we will ask the Films Council to look at this as a matter of urgency, and then, if they report that a higher figure should be inserted, we can do it very quickly, after considering their recommendations. It would be a mistake at this stage to fix any definite figure. I do not know what will be the report of the Films Council, but as I have said, as soon as the new Council is established, I will refer this to them as a matter of urgency. I do not think there is much point in referring the matter again to the present Films Council, which is now in process of being wound up. I think that it would be far better for the new Council to look at the matter.

Mr. Collins: Would it be possible to arrive at a decision on this matter before the Bill has passed through all its stages?

Mr. Wilson: I will have a look at that, and see whether it will be possible to get this matter reviewed. I would prefer to leave it to the new Films Council.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4.—(Exemption and relief of certain theatres and itinerant exhibitors.)

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out "subsection (1)."
This Amendment gives effect to a promise made during the Committee stage, It will remove from the Bill the provisions which exempt from the quota the small cinemas with net weekly takings of less than £100. At a later stage, we shall move an Amendment to bring in these cinemas in certain instances where they are in a highly competitive situation.

Earl Winterton: In order to save the time of the House, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman

for having met what was obviously the general consensus of opinion by putting down these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out from "that," to "theatres," in line 5, and to insert:
films are so exhibited at not less than two other.
This Amendment was pressed for by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) at an earlier stage. We are now providing that if there are two strong near competitors instead of three, the exhibitor will qualify to apply for a reduction. Whether or not an applicant who can point to two nearby exhibitors can make his point, will depend on local circumstances. This Subsection is permissive and not mandatory, as is the case of the smaller unit.

Mr. W. Fletcher: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having considered the matter, and for having agreed to the suggestion which was made. He is perfectly right in saying that this does not in any way give a right to the exhibitor, but only gives him an opportunity to have his case examined.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 8, leave out from "applicant," to end of line.

In line 9, after second "films," insert "are exhibited."—[Mr. Wilson.]

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(4) If upon application made to them as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section not less than three months before the beginning of any quota period the Board are satisfied—

(a) that the theatre to which the application relates fulfils the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection; and
b) that the average net box office receipts of the theatre during the year ending six months before the beginning of that quota period did not exceed one hundred pounds per week,

the Board shall direct that the foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to the exhibition of films at that theatre during that quota period.
This Amendment deals with the point about the small cinema. There is a slight difference in treatment here from that in the case of the larger cinemas. In this case they will get relief, and it is not


merely permissive on the Board of Trade to give relief. This Amendment fits in with the general wish of the House. It was felt that it would make the quotas more effective and give them more bite. It also meets the point made by hon. Members, that in certain parts of the country cinemas might be in a monopoly position to deny British cinemagoers the right to see British films. We have provided that the small cinemas genuinely in a difficult competitive position can and will get relief.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Circuit theatres, etc.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 5, leave out "year", and insert "quota period"—[Mr. H. Wilson.]

11.30 a.m.

Mr. W. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, to leave out "Board", and to insert "Cinematograph Films Council".
I do not wish to weary the House with the arguments which were adduced on this, subject at an earlier stage, but we still believe that the right body to act in this matter is the Films Council, largely because there is such a considerable proportion of independent representation which, I am now glad to see, is to be increased from five to seven.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. H. Wilson: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, because its effect would be to take responsibility for appointing, members of the Selection Committee from the Board of Trade, and transfer it to the Council. I am not at all clear what would be the value of that. I know that one or two Members opposite had in mind the danger—very remote, I think—that the President of the Board of Trade, or a future President, might appoint a Selection Committee which would be of such a character and complexion as might be likely to direct the showing of a number of films for their propaganda value. We have already given a specific assurance on that, and we have gone further by proposing an Amendment to ensure that these films shall be shown by reason of their entertainment value, which may not at all be the same as their propaganda value.
If the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) thinks that a future President might pack the Selection Committee he cannot really be reassured, even if his Amendment is accepted, as the President can appoint the Films Council and could pack the Selection Committee after he had carefully packed the Films Council to his own choosing. We have, of course, no intention of packing either the Films Council or the Selection Committee. The membership of the present Selection Committee, which is widely representative of different points of view, should reassure the hon. Gentleman on this point.

Mr. W. Fletcher: In view of the tortuous—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot make a second speech at this stage.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 8, at end, insert:
by reason of their entertainment value.
(3) A direction given by the Board under any such condition as aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the requirements imposed on the exhibitor by section one of this Act, but any film exhibited in compliance with such a direction shall be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Charging of rentals for registered films.)

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, at the end to insert:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall render unlawful an agreement between a renter and an exhibitor for the delivery as aforesaid of two or more films at an inclusive rental, if the proportion of the rental to be attributed to each film is defined on or before the delivery of those films.
This Amendment, which covers a small point, makes it clear that although each film must, in due course, be separately charged for, it will still be permissible for the renter to quote to the exhibitor an inclusive price for two or more films, provided the alteration is made in the two different films before they are delivered.

Earl Winterton: This Amendment meets the views of many who are connected with the industry, and I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for proposing to put it into the Bill.

Mr. Collins: I wonder why these words must be inserted, and whether they are not dangerous? There has been a great deal of discussion on this Bill about the practice of charging weekly rentals of 10s. or 15s. for second feature films. All are agreed that this is a practice which is extremely bad for the industry. Reference has also been made to the practice of block bookings, whereby a feature film is given to an exhibitor for a proportion of the takings, 50 per cent. or more, and a second feature film is thrown in. My right hon. Friend has said that these words are of small importance but, in effect, they give the blessing of this Bill to these practices. The renter will be able to say, "Here is an arrangement which is not merely regarded as a trade practice, but is desirable." Nothing has been said about defining the proportions. They can be as to 99 per cent. for one film and 1 per cent. for another. I hope my right hon. Friend will look at this matter again, because I feel that these words will lead to a continuance of those practices which the industry have regarded as most undesirable.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Composition of Cinematograph Films Council.)

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, to leave out "five," and to insert "seven."

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if we discussed this Amendment together with the following Amendments which deal with the same point.

Mr. Wilson: The constitution of the Films Council is a matter on which some Members expressed concern, both on the Second Reading and during the Committee stage, when I said that we had a reasonably open mind about it and wanted to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members before putting any more concrete recommendations to the House. In Committee, I indicated the kind of Films Council which I thought would best meet the wishes which have been expressed, and these Amendments carry out that intention. It means that the Films Council will be a bigger body than we contemplated on the Second Reading, but in view of the anxiety expressed, particularly

about the number of independent members, we though it right to make these changes.
It is now proposed to increase the number of independent members to seven, and I can give the House an assurance that at least one of the seven will be a Scotsman or a Scotswoman. Instead of putting anything into the Bill, however, I propose to look after this myself by my powers of appointment. It is proposed to substitute five exhibitors for four, and to lay it down explicitly that one of the exhibitors must represent exhibitors in Scotland, who have their own special problems and who have been particularly helpful between the Committee and Report stages.
We also propose to have four representatives of persons employed by makers, renters or exhibitors—a point which was pressed by Members on both sides of the Committee. Finally, we propose to make it permissible for people who are not members of the Council to be co-opted as additional members of the Committee of the Council itself. This provision will enable the Council, if they think fit, to adopt an additional Scottish exhibitor, besides the one already on the Council, to serve on a special committee to review Scottish quota defaults—a point pressed on us both inside and outside the Chamber. I shall be prepared to ask the new council to consider the advisability of setting up a special Scottish defaults committee, which they can do with their full-time Scottish exhibitor member and with the co-opted members.
The only other assurance I have to give—because I did not think it necessary to put down an Amendment—is that one of the four member producers will be appointed to represent makers of the specialised films not intended for exhibition as first features. I hope that the House will agree that in the Amendment we have met the wishes that were expressed.

Commander Galbraith: The Amendments on which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken are to a considerable extent connected with Scottish views, and we appreciate the thought that he has given to this aspect of the matter It was raised on the Second Reading Debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) and the hon. And


gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). They made it abundantly clear that this was not a parochial matter, neither was it in any way connected with national sentiment, but was put forward because they did not feel that the Cinematograph Films Council, as laid down, could possibly take into account Scottish feelings, views and tastes. That was emphasised during the later stages by hon. Members from all parts of the House. There was, indeed, a most extraordinary alignment. When one finds the hon. and gallant Members for Argyll and Perth acting together and expressing the same views as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) and others, there is, I think, some weight behind the views expressed. While we appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has done, we do not think that he has gone far enough. We shall wait with interest to see how this matter works out.
I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has, in particular, taken into account the fears expressed with regard to quota defaults. I think it was on that point that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members had particular anxiety. That anxiety was strengthened because of the number of small independent operators in Scotland. We feel that they require the utmost possible protection. I would like to have seen it in the Bill that the seven independent members which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes should at least include one member from Scotland. He has said that he will see to that himself, but, naturally, we would rather have seen it in the Bill than leave it to the discretion of the Minister, whoever he may be from time to time.
The same applies to the separate Scottish committee which the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the new Council should set up. I do not know why that cannot have been written in the Bill. Perhaps, if the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will give his reasons for these matters being left out of the Bill. Speaking for my hon. Friends on this side of the House, we are very doubtful whether the measures which the Minister now proposes are sufficient to met our point of view. We shall wait to see how they work

out, but we feel disappointed that he has not felt able to go further than he has done.

Mr. Willis: I would like to take the opportunity of thanking the President of the Board of Trade for having come some distance to meet the demands and representations of Scottish Members on both sides of the House. I, along with some of my colleagues on this side, have put down an Amendment to include a Scottish independent member in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend has given an assurance that he intends to appoint at least one of the independent members of the Films Council to represent the point of view of Scotland, I do not think we shall need to press for the Amendment. I should, however, like to have seen that included in the Bill, because, as the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has said, it is all very well for the present President of the Board of Trade to make a promise that there will be a member representing Scottish interests, but that is no guarantee that future Presidents of the Board of Trade will be so sympathetic to Scotland.
Scotland, undoubtedly, has its own particular problems. We are glad that the President has gone some way to meet us, but still have doubts as to whether he has gone far enough. Perhaps he can assist us by giving some idea of what he has in mind concerning the sub-committee that will be responsible for quota defaults. If we could have some clear indication of what he intends, that would go some distance towards allaying the fears of many small Scottish exhibitors.
We have down also an Amendment to reduce still further the number of renters on the Films Council. Owing to the situation in Scotland, where there is a large percentage of small exhibitors, there is a great fear concerning the composition of the Films Council. We would like to see the number of producers and renters balanced as against the number representing the exhibitors. That is not quite done, although the balance is fairer under the new proposals. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to look at this again to see if he cannot do something to make the balance still better. If lie could do that, he would undoubtedly go a long way towards meeting the request made during the Committee stage of the Bill.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) has expressed some honest doubts which remind me of a line from an English poet:
There lives more faith in honest doubt, Believe me, than in half the creeds.
We do not doubt the intention of the President of the Board of Trade. I have every confidence that so long as he is at the Board of Trade he will keep his promises. We would have liked to see the old idea of a Scottish Films Council embodied in the Bill. I believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Pollock (Commander Galbraith) lives in my constituency and that I represent him very faithfully, but this is the first occasion on which we have agreed. I can assure the President of the Board of Trade that if the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok and I agree, there is unanimous opinion in Scotland about the necessity for Scotland being adequately represented, and having its point of view expressed on the Films Council.
An attempt was made to appease us on the Committee stage by the revelation that Sir Alexander Korda was to go to Scotland to make a film in which Will Fyffe was to represent Bonnie Prince Charlie. That rather alarmed me, because we do not want to see the romantic life of Scotland portrayed on the films so much as the realism of Scottish life. I would have been much more appeased if the hon. Member had been able to say that Sir Alexander Korda or some Scottish producer was going to produce a film of "The House with the Green Shutters" or something embodying grim realism, instead of the romantic side of Scottish life. I am sure that we shall get fair play from the President of the Board of Trade, although I am not sure whether we should get fair play if the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok were elevated to that position.
In view of the assurances which we have been given, we do not propose to press the Amendment, with the reservation that we think that one out of seven is not adequate representation for Scotland. I know that the Scottish exhibitors are very anxious to get fair play before what they call an English jury. I know what some of these English juries are like. I

have been before them in another capacity, and I know no worse jury in the whole of civilisation than a special jury of the City of London, especially when considering questions of libel. I know what it is to be tried by an English jury, and Scotsmen have been quite reasonable in asking that they be tried by their own fellow countrymen.

Mr. Collins: If I may rescue this discussion from being an all Scottish occasion, I would like to say a few words on the point embodied in the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself; in line 24 after "four," insert:
including adequate representation of the makers of films other than those exhibited as first feature films.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has given an assurance that at least one of the four makers of British films who are to be on the Films Council shall be makers of documentary and films other than first feature films. It is the same kind of assurance as he has given in relation to other matters; I am sure we will all accept that assurance in the knowledge that it will be implemented. However, in our Amendment we have not suggested that any particular number should be on the Council. We have merely proposed that there shall be "adequate representation," and I do not understand why my right hon. Friend has not felt able to accept that Amendment. We know that in the past there was on the Council one member of the documentary and specialised film industry. That was in the days when the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), and later when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), held the office of President of the Board of Trade. Then the Council lost that single member. That is an example of representation by the makers of specialised films which was actually lost from the Film Council. Obviously, that can happen again.
While I am not prepared to argue whether one or two representatives should be on the Council, it is obvious that no representative at all cannot be considered as adequate representation. All we are asking is that words should be inserted to ensure that there shall be adequate representation from the section of the industry to which I have referred. The


Board of Trade, on the advice of the Films Council, would be able to define what was adequate representation. It is from that section of the industry that a great deal of educative work has come in the past, and will, doubtless, come in the future. The presence of a member of that section of the industry on the Films Council could do much to ensure the general improvement of films and might even avoid the kind of blunders of which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was complaining. That sort of thing could not have happened if the Films Council had at least one member representing makers of films other than first feature films. Therefore, I hope that these words, which are quite innocuous but which may be very useful in future, or something similar, will be accepted and that we shall not have to depend indefinitely over a period of 10 years on continued assurances which, in changed circumstances, may not be implemented, thus having a had effect on the specialised section of the industry.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I rise merely for the purpose of expressing my thanks to the President of the Board of Trade for the Amendments which he has introduced. In accepting the suggestions put forward by some of my hon. Friends and myself, and by hon. Members opposite, my right hon. Friend has met the opinion which was expressed in all quarters, and has produced a more balanced composition of the Cinematograph Films Council than was provided in the Bill as drafted. The changes which are now effected will go a long way, if not the whole way, towards meeting the criticisms which have been made by those interested in the industry. The addition of two independent persons is in itself very satisfactory, as is the addition of one more representative of the exhibitors to provide a more adequate representation of the diverse exhibiting interests in the trade. I am also indebted to the President of the Board of Trade for extending to the whole industry the classes of employees from which four representatives, instead of two as at present, will in future, be appointed to the Council.
I have listened with sympathy to the observations made by hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. In reply I would say that I think that Scottish interests have been very reasonably

treated in the Bill, inasmuch as it provides that there shall be at least one out of five representatives drawn from Scotland. I think experience shows that whether or not there are rigid provisions in an Act of Parliament for Scottish interests to be specifically represented, when a President of the Board of Trade or any other Minister makes appointments of this kind to a body which is concerned with trade and matters of interest to Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England. care is always taken to ensure that Scottish interests are looked after.

Mr. George Thomas: They are looked after mote often than Welsh interests.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think Welsh interests are ignored any more than those of other parts of the country. Hon Members need have no doubt that the interests of Scotland and other parts of the country will be safeguarded by the President of the Board of Trade in selecting representatives to the Films Council.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: I wish to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher). I speak as a Scotsman who is anxious that there shall be Scottish representation. I did not associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum), but I was entirely in sympathy with him.
I am also concerned with the interests of makers of documentary and short films. Scotsmen have statutory representation, but the makers of documentary and short films have no statutory representation. Of course, they have had a satisfactory undertaking from the President of the Board of Trade so far as he is concerned, but obviously he cannot bind any other President of the Board of Trade. I believe it may be necessary to have more than one representative of the makers of documentary and short films on the Films Council because it may very well be that this rather difficult question of minimum rentals will arise. I know that my right hon. Friend promised to refer this matter to the Committee of Inquiry which he is to set up, but that will take a very long time, and the subject of minimum rentals is a burning question.
Only when the documentary and short film is put on the same basis as that of


the first feature film—a proposition from which I do not think the Board of Trade can dissent—will the makers of documentary and short films be in a position to hold their own in the film industry of this country. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it may be necessary to have more than one representative of documentary and short films because if there is only one representative, he will be in a hopeless minority and unable to make any headway with his case.

12.0 noon.

Mr. H. Wilson: With the permission of the House, I will reply to the points which have been raised. In connection with the representation of Scotland, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that it is an important event when he and the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) agree. When they do agree on anything, the House should look at it very carefully. Although they had confidence that I will carry out my assurances on the matter of appointment, both wanted some guarantee as to what future Presidents of the Board of Trade might or might not do. The best guarantee we can possibly have is the presence of so many active and vocal Scottish Members in this House. I cannot imagine a future President of the Board of Trade daring to go back on those assurances because he will know that he will have a very rough time at the hands of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and so many other hon. Members.

Mr. Lyttelton: Suppose the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not here.

Mr. Wilson: If it is a question of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire not being here, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to think a little about what was said of the possibility of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok succeeding to his position, because he has not shown any signs of crossing the House and even when he does he will have to work his passage. The points raised about the danger of the late Will Fyffe being cast to represent Bonnie Prince Charlie are outside the scope of this provision, and many of them ought to be dealt with by the Scots themselves

expanding their own production industry. That is not a problem for the Films Council. I will keep the question of the default committee under review.
The point raised about the unsuitability of British films for many Scottish cinemas and the possibility that a lower quota would have to be fixed must fall to the ground. However unsuitable British films are for Scottish cinemas, I cannot imagine that they are any more foreign than Hollywood films. If one had to admit that, it would raise all kinds of difficulties such as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) would, I am sure, like to raise about Wales.
When I first looked at the Amendment about renters, I thought that perhaps one renter rather than two renters would be appropriate in view of the fact that the renters' quota obligations had been abolished, but when I went into it I became certain that we must keep two. One represents American companies and the other British companies and it would be wrong at this stage to suggest pushing the American renter off the Council. That would be regarded as a highly provocative thing to do and all kinds of inappropriate motives would be read into it. I can tell the House that the American renter has never interfered in purely British matters, such as British default matters. I can also confirm that the contributions of the American renters to the Council have always been helpful and constructive, or anyhow almost always It would therefore be valuable to keep the American representative on the Council, but I would not consider keeping the American representative on and pushing off the British one, and I therefore see no alternative to keeping them both on.

Mr. Willis: The point at issue is that the renters and producers have a bigger majority on the Council than the exhibitors, and in view of the fact that the renters have no obligations concerning the quota and that all the obligations are on the exhibitors, there is a great fear about this majority.

Mr. Wilson: If my hon. Friend will look at the way in which the various sides are likely to break up, he will see that a very careful balance has been preserved. I should very much deprecate any suggestion that we should disturb this


balance, which represents the general sense of the views of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) referred to an Amendment to secure adequate representation of the documentary and other specialised producers. I can think of no vaguer phrase than that to write into a Bill on this point. When he said that I should take the advice of the Films Council as to what "adequate" means he was asking for trouble. I cannot possibly ask the Films Council what representation there should be of the documentary producers because the Films Council will be set up and will already include representatives of documentary and other specialised film producers. In any case, there is always a danger that the Films Council would say that adequate representation of this branch is not practicable. I should be in a difficult situation and he would be worse off than he will be under my present proposals.
I can certainly undertake, as I have undertaken, to see that there is one representative of this branch of the industry, though I cannot accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) when he interprets "adequate" as meaning two representatives. It would be a completely wrong balance to have two of the four producers from that branch. I have agreed that that branch has very difficult problems and have indicated how they may best be dealt with. My hon. Friend must not be greedy and ask for two representatives. I hope he will be satisfied with one. I am certainly prepared to consider inserting some form of words to ensure that there will always be representation. I do not like the phrase "adequate representation," but perhaps new words can be introduced in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 20, at end, insert:
(b) the number of members appointed as representing exhibitors shall be five instead of four, of whom one shall be appointed as representing exhibitors in Scotland.

In line 21, leave out "respectively."

In line 22, leave out from "films," to "shall," in line 23.

In line 24, leave out first "each."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in hoe 24 to leave out the second "each," and to insert:
and
(d) four members shall be appointed as representing persons employed by makers, renters or exhibitors of British films instead of two members representing persons employed by makers of British films.
(2) Any committee of the Council may include persons who are not members of the Council, and any such committee may co-opt as additional members of the committee such persons, whether members of the Council or not, as the committee may determine.

Question, "That the word 'each' stand part of the Bill," put and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the proposed new Subsection (2).
This is a small point. This is an occasion where the Government's second thoughts have been worse than their first. They have added words to the Clause which would permit any committee of the Council to co-opt anybody. After listening to an argument from the President of the Board of Trade about the vagueness of such words as "adequate," it is rather surprising to find an Amendment of this kind which might cause any sub-committee of the Council to proliferate all over the country and include any kind of member connected with the trade or with Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the United Nations or anything else. These words are quite unnecessary, a blot on the Bill are vague and undefined, and might well be excluded.

Mr. Wilson: I could not understand what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind when he put down this Amendment, but I do now. The idea of the Government Amendment was to make it possible to deal with the Scottish problem by co-opting Scottish exhibitors to serve on a Scottish Defaults Committee. I do not think it likely that the Films Council would be likely to set up committees all over the country, to co-opt all kinds of extraordinary people, and to give wrongheaded advice to the Board of Trade on many of the subjects about which they are required to advise us, particularly bearing in mind the constitution of the Council, which is a delicate balance of the various interests in the industry, include-


ing certain independent members. These I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel, when he sees who are chosen, are reasonable-minded people.
However, now that I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman is worried about, I agree that theoretically there is a possibility that such things might happen, although I cannot imagine it, and I will see that the point he has in mind is covered.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I would support the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that there are constitutional objections to the proposal made by the President of the Board of Trade because, as it stands, enabling any committees appointed by the Cinematograph Films Council to co-opt outside persons. Bearing in mind the considerable and increased responsibility of the Council under this Bill—because in future the President can only act in certain directions after taking its advice—it is undesirable in general that those committees should be able, without any control either by the Council, the President of the Board of Trade, or this House, to co-opt additional members at random, which might well destroy the balance we have been taking such careful pains to ensure. Therefore, I was glad to hear that the President will reconsider the matter. If the only purpose of this Amendment is to enable the particular Scottish Default Committee to co-opt, where necessary, Scottish exhibitors, I hope that language can be chosen which will limit the powers in the Bill to that specific purpose, and not extend the operations of the Council in a way which seems objectionable in principle and might well provide difficulties in practice.

Earl Winterton: I suggest we might leave the matter where it has been placed by the spokesman of the Government. My right hon. Friend, myself and the industry are fully satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman will give sympathetic consideration to it.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Interpretation, citation commencement and extent.)

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, at the end, to insert:
(3)References in any enactment to the principal Act shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that Act as amended by this Act.
This refers to the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938. As that Act is to remain in force with the Amendments made in it by this Bill, it is necessary that this reference to that Act should be embodied.

Mr. Lyttelton: We are willing to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of principal Act and repeals.)

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, at the end, to insert:
and for the words 'that year,' there shall be substituted the words 'that period'.

This is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 27, at end, insert:
In subsection (4), for the word 'year,' there shall be substituted the words 'quota period'.
In subsection (7), for the words 'the year,' there shall be substituted the words 'the quota period,' and for the words 'that year.' there shall be substituted the words 'that period'."—[Mr. Wilson.]

In page 9, line 50, after second "period," insert "and."—[Mr. Belcher.]

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 10. to leave out lines 5 to 9, and to insert:
After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(2A) Any exhibitor who, in any quota period, exhibits as aforesaid films registered as long films shall, in addition to the matters required by the last foregoing subsection to be recorded by him, keep records of the rental paid or payable in respect of each such film so exhibited.'
In subsection (3), after the word 'by, in the first place where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words' subsection (2) of.' and after the word 'book,' in the second and third places where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words' or records'.
The effect of this Amendment is to make it unnecessary for the exhibitor to record the rental paid for his long films in the record book which he has to keep at his theatre, as long as he records it somewhere. This was raised by my hon. Friend


the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) on the Committee stage. As I aid then, these records must be kept somewhere, because the amount of rental determines which of two long films shown in the same programme is to be shown as the first feature. If no record was kept, and a first feature film was shown as a second feature, it would not be possible to convict the exhibitor as having knowingly made a false return. However, as a matter of convenience on the circuits, whether large or small, we felt it was not essential to require them to keep the records at each theatre.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, at the end, to insert:
for the word 'year,' in every subsequent place where that word occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'period'.
This, and the remaining Amendments on the Order Paper, are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In line 27, at end, insert:
and for the word 'year,' there shall be substituted the words 'quota period'.

In line 43, leave out "nineteen," and insert "twenty-two."

In line 46, leave out "five," and insert "seven."

In line 48, after "four," insert:
in paragraph (d) for the word 'four,' there shall be substituted the word 'five,' and at the end of the said paragraph there shall be inserted the words 'of whom one shall be appointed as representing exhibitors in Scotland'.

In line 50, at end, insert:
and after the word 'makers,' there shall be inserted the words 'renters or exhibitors'.

In page 14, line 8, at end, insert:
In subsection (8), the words 'consisting of such members of the Council as it may determine,' shall be omitted.

In line 24, at end, insert:
and includes the year ending on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-eight."—[Mr. Belcher.]

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(The Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, as amended by this Act.)

Amendments made:

In page 18, line 19, leave out "year," and insert "period."

In line 46, leave out "year," and insert "quota period."

In page 19, line 12, leave out "year," and insert "quota period."

In line 14, leave out "year," and insert "period."

In page 20, leave out lines 48 and 49.

In page 21, line 4, at end, insert:
(2A) Any exhibitor who, in any quota period, exhibits as aforesaid films registered as long films, shall in addition to the matters required by the last foregoing subsection to be recorded by him, keep records of the rental paid or payable in respect of each such film so exhibited.

In line 5, after "by," insert "sub section(2) of."

In line 12, after "book," insert "or records."

In page 30, line 18, leave out "year," and insert "period."

In page 31, line 4, leave out "year," and insert "quota period."

In page 32, line 8, leave out "nineteen," and insert "twenty-two."

In line 10, leave out "five," and insert "seven."

In line 15, leave out "four," and insert "five."

In line 15, at end, insert:
of whom one shall be appointed as representing exhibitors in Scotland.

In line 18, after "makers," insert "renters or exhibitors."

In page 33, line 26, leave out from first "Council," to end of line 27.

In page 34, line 34, at end, insert:
and includes the year ending on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-eight."—[Mr. Belcher.]

Consequential Amendments made.

12.19 p.m.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I wish to express on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself our sincere appreciation of the high degree of co-operation which we have received during the passage of the Bill. From all parts of the House we have had nothing but reasonableness and good suggestions, many of which we have been able to incorporate in the Bill. If we could always conduct our affairs with the degree of cordiality which has characterised this Bill, we


would all be much happier. If there are any points to be raised on the Third Reading, my right hon. Friend proposes to deal with them.

12.20 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I wish to support what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are grateful to the two Ministers for the way in which they have met us. The Bill, as amended, represents the collective opinion of the House on an important industry. I am sure that industry will be grateful for the valuable, if somewhat variegated advice offered to it through the medium of the Bill at its various stages.
As the Minister said, when hon. Members are able to express opinions unfettered by party issues, the result is a credit to this House. I might add that even the silliest and bitterest critics of our Parliamentary institution must admit that on occasions we are a most useful deliberative and legislative body. But those occasions are not the invariable rule. There are others when the luscious sentimentality and unconscious humour of this House at its worst beats the screen at its worst, or, to use a phrase recently patented by the Foreign Secretary, "wins out." The moral is that this House has no more right or reason to expect the screen always to show the best, most cultivated, and most socially valuable films, than the nation has the right or reason to demand that in this place we never stage a poor exhibition of how to carry out the nation's business. The film industry is human like any other institution. I think it necessary to say that, because the Bill lays down certain standards, and human error comes into the matter. It is germane to the Bill to say this, because in some quarters there has been a tendency to demand of the film industry a higher unvarying standard than we have in this House, or in most forms of human activity. This Bill, like its predecessor, maintains a far greater measure of control over the industry than is exercised over the Press, the theatre, or, in some respects, the B.B.C.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Or over the Church.

Earl Winterton: I do not know what the hon. Member means. I do not know what the Church has to do with it.
The theatre is not ordered to produce a certain quota of Shakespearean plays.

It would be out of Order to discuss this matter at length on Third Reading, but that is the kind of control that is exercised by this House through the Films Council. The industry accepts that situation, but I wish to point out to all hon. Members that it has dangers where a still nascent industry, with reasonable chances of developing a valuable export trade on a higher level than today, is trying to find its way. The President of the Board of Trade would be the first to agree that there are great possibilities for this trade, which is a comparatively new trade, and that it has to find its way. In my judgment those dangers can be avoided if the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is carried out by all concerned, this House, the Minister as far as he has power, the Films Council, and others, in a reasonable spirit. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will not dissent from what I have said.
That is the essence of the Bill, and I have only one other point of substance to make. I apologise for saying something so obvious, but it appears to have been forgotten in the course of the discussion this morning. The public go to cinemas to look at films which they want to see and not necessarily to see what Authority, in capital letters, what the Minister or the Films Council wants them to see. Authority cannot control public taste. Indeed, if it attempted to do so, it would fail. That is why I am glad that a certain Amendment was put in the Bill, emphasising the point I have made. The chances in the export trade are bright. For that reason it Is most necessary that British films, including the quota films, should have a universal appeal, as far as it is possible to arrive at a universal appeal. But, as hon. Members like myself, interested in the trade, know, we are far from realising what is a universal film.
The industry must aim at that, in order to get a good export trade. Those engaged in the industry realise that it is a risky one. Indeed we could not do anything else, after listening to the speeches of hon. Members on all sides of the House. We also agree that those who control the industry are not always right. I must say, with the greatest seriousness, and I do not think there can be any dissent, that the House should give them credit that in a time of desperate export need, and by means of, trial and error, they are holding their own at home and


abroad. Such a task requires what I claim the industry has as a whole, men of courage, vision and willingness to incur risks and odium. If I may finish on a slightly controversial note, I should say that these qualities merit praise and not denigration.

12.27 p.m.

Mr. O'Brien: I think that most hon. Members on all sides of the House will share to a considerable extent the views now expressed by the noble Lord. The Bill states in its citation:
to make further provision for securing the exhibition of a certain proportion of British cinematograph films, and otherwise to amend and continue the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938.
We might be tempted to forget the purpose of the Bill, especially in the difficult circumstances in which the British film industry finds itself today. It was very pleasing to me to hear from the noble Lord the reminder to the House that the British film industry, and those of us connected with it for many years, had passed the stage of merely filling in some niche vis-à-vis American films coming over to this country. Some of us had looked to the British film industry not only as a means of high entertainment of our own people, but of serving the country's needs in the export market and earning dollars and other currencies, not merely to adjust our financial difficulties, but to give some uplift and real entertainment and other values to the countries taking British films. That has been held up for the time being, and I trust my right hon. Friend will take immediate steps, when the Bill becomes law, to set up the Cinematograph Films Council which is provided for in Clause 8.
On that matter I wish to appeal to my right hon. Friend to do two or three special things. He will be confronted with the difficult situation which faces the industry today for one or another reason. There are two major problems affecting the trade at the present time. The first is that within the space of merely a matter of months we find ourselves with enough studio space available today to serve the interests of any particular producer who wishes to make a film. A few weeks ago at the very most my right hon. Friend had to receive a deputation, headed by myself, which appealed to him, on behalf of the workers in the film industry, to do

all he could to try to provide studio space for those who needed that space to make British films. Within a few weeks that situation has completely changed, almost as quickly as a transformation scene in a pantomime. We now have that studio space available, but there is nobody able to make the films and so use that space. They cannot raise the money. There is not a bank, a finance house, individual industrialist or financier in Great Britain today who will put a penny into film production. That is one of the points of which I beg my right hon. Friend to take note and to put before the Film Council, when it is set up, so that the matter can be investigated. I hope he will be able to think over some ways and means whereby finance can be made available in order that the production of films, which this Bill seeks to encourage and promote, can proceed.
The other difficulty is the question of unemployment with which we are confronted today. Several hundred trade unionists and workers in the industry generally, who are represented not only by my own organisation but by others, are receiving what are called their "insurance cards"— they are being dismissed on account of the fact that there is no longer any work for them. I mention these facts so that the Films Council can get down to finding out the causes of these two problems—redundancy of labour and available studio space—and try to deal with them in a practical way so that the provisions of this Bill can be operated.
I welcome the assurance we have been given that the President of the Board of Trade will go into the question of the labour costs of feature films more fully. I do not know what has gone wrong between the Second Reading of this Bill and now. I assure my right hon. Friend that so far as the industry on the technical, artisan and labour side is concerned, we did not believe that there was any intention on the part of the Board of Trade to alter the labour costs of feature production below the 30s. per foot which was in the previous Act. I beg my right hon. Friend to take note of that point because there is a serious risk that if feature films—I am saying nothing about "shorts"—are produced at below that figure, there will be a great temptation, especially under present difficulties and in present circumstances, to make a


new spate of what we used to call "quickies." They may be modern "quickies," but we do not want them, whether they are modern or old.
Finally, I wish to add my own word of praise to the very sincere "Hallelujah Chorus" to which my right hon. Friend has listened this morning. He has shown a grasp of the complexities and difficulties of the film industry that does him the greatest credit, particularly when we remember that he had to handle this difficult task within a few days of taking office at the Board of Trade. He has steered this Bill through with the assistance of his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, and has avoided what could have been dynamite. He knows to what I am referring. The general overriding situation could have been handled in such a way as to create a serious industrial difficulty. I share the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who himself had considerable experience of the difficulties of the film industry at the time he was at the Board of Trade. I share his praise and the praise which my hon. Friends have given to my right hon. Friend, and I hope that he will be able to do something bigger than he has done in securing the passage of this Bill, that is, the implementation of the ideas of his own personal ideals in this matter. I thank him not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of the working side of this industry.

12.35 P.m.

Mr. John Wilmot: We have been discussing this whole matter in the shadow of the most regrettable circumstances which were forced upon us by the currency situation, under which no American films are coming to Britain and very few British films are going to America. The primary need tot this industry today is to open the channels of exchange again, and to see that film-cross the Atlantic both ways. I was impressed by the arguments which my right hon. Friend and his able Parliamentary Secretary put forward for retaining some elasticity in the operation of the Bill and I accepted the reasons which he gave hit not now determining the quota or fixing finally the labour costs. Upon reflection, I think there is some wisdom in that course, because the task to which he has how to address himself is to remove this

deplorable breakdown of exchanges between us and the Americans.
The Bill is meaningless unless normal relations can be instituted again. It seems to me that there is a possibility in the method by which the quota is used of facilitating the resumption of this most potentially valuable trade. In making the regulations which will lay down the quota, could not my right hon. Friend consider the possiblity of giving exemption from the quota to the extent that the American exhibiting rights of British films are purchased here by American renters? I make the suggestion because there is looming ahead of us a further real danger, that is, that we shall be forced into a situation in which, if the Americans cannot bring their films across, they will produce films in Britain. While it is better that American films should be produced in Britain than that there should be no films at all, what we really want to see is the production of British films by British genius in the British way, and not just American films produced in Britain. It is important that in implementing the provisions of the Hill some inducement should be given to American renters to buy the American showing rights of genuine British films, and it might well be that some exemption from the quota obligations could be given as a condition of their purchase of the American showing rights of British films.
Then there is the obvious alternative and parallel method by which some part of the receipts from the duty on imported American films could be made available for the purchase of American showing rights of British films. I put this suggestion to my right hon Friend in the hope that in framing the regulations which will carry into effect the provisions of this Bill he will have in mind, as I am sure he has, the necessity of securing the widest possible circulation for British films made in the British way and showing the British way of life.

12.40 p m

Mr. Collins: I would like to add my modest word to what was called the "Hallelujah Chorus" of praise for my right hon. Friend, by merely pointing out that what was, I think the first Bill he has steered through this House has gone through all its stages without a single Division. Whilst this was, not a very controversial Measure, there were items


which raised a good deal of difference of opinion, and the fact that we had not any Divisions is due, in a great measure, to the efforts of my right hon. Friend.
There is no need to exaggerate the importance of this Bill. It is quite a modest Bill, but it will very greatly assist the industry, particularly the makers of British films. I entirely agree with the view put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) that the American film industry must remain of very considerable importance, and that it is to be hoped that the present difficulties will be resolved in one way or another. Above all, I believe that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, if properly utilised, can be used for the improvement and enlargement of the scope of the British film-making industry. It is in that matter that I am particularly interested.
There is one section of the industry, in particular, which is in very considerable difficulty at the moment, and that is the specialised and documentary film industry. I understand that something like a thousand technicians, if not already unemployed, are facing the prospect of unemployment in the very near future. During the Second Reading my right hon. Friend made mention of his decision to set up a committee of inquiry. That has been referred to as the most important thing in the whole discussion, far more important in fact than the Bill itself. I consider that to be perfectly true. Therefore, I would urge on my right hon. Friend the need for a very speedy implementation of that decision, and for the encouragement of the deliberations of that committee to take place as quickly as possible, and to be implemented as soon as their conclusions are made known, provided they are accepted by my right hon. Friend.
The industry is now at a stage when what is required is action and not merely discussions and decisions. Urgent action must be taken, even before this Bill becomes an Act. My right hon. Friend might consider calling together the leaders of the industry, the makers, the renters, exhibitors, and the representatives from the workers' side, to see what can be done now, immediately and quickly, to increase the number of British films in production, and to do all that is possible to ensure that our cinemas—particularly during this critical period which is facing us—will

have something worth while to show to their patrons. In the course of these discussions, which have been of a somewhat technical nature, we have not said a great deal about the point of view and the difficulties of the man who pays his 1s. 9d. After all, the whole of this Bill, everything we are doing and all that we are discussing, is in order that eventually we may have something to show on the cinema screens of this country. I hope, therefore, that, quite apart from this Bill, and from the committee of inquiry, my right hon. Friend will do what he can, and do it very quickly, to bring the various sections of the industry together, and to see what changes can be made at once.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Benn Levy: Hon. Members have frequently pointed out that these Debates have maintained an atmosphere of almost Christmas card cordiality, and that is true. If the Debates have been uncontroversial it is for two reasons. First, because the Bill has been a good Bill and secondly, as I must point out, because it has not been a very radical Bill. If it had been, I doubt whether the discussions would have been quite as uncontroversial as they were.
It has not always been present to our minds that we have been discussing this Bill at a time of very serious crisis in the film industry. At this very moment there is the prospect, of insufficient films to keep our theatres open. Concurrently with that, there is a growing diminution of activity in the studios. Employees are being sacked. Studio space is not being utilised to the full, in spite of the fact that there is unlikely to be sufficient pictures available for theatres in the coming years. This is the kind of topsy-turvy situation that the so-called free enterprise system throws up from time to time. It is not now my business to generalise about it.

Mr. Lyttelton: Free enterprise?

Mr. Levy: The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to claim that the sacred system of free enterprise has been adulterated by the Government's action in respect of dollars. I do him the credit of reminding him, however, that that was an action which he himself wholeheartedly supported.
I raise this matter because I wish the President of the Board of Trade to think very seriously about it. Although he has


made an important announcement that there is to be a committee of inquiry into the film industry, that is, necessarily, a long-term, or at least, not a short-term, remedy. I want to ask him to take some short-term steps to deal with the situation of empty studios and redundancy, not only for the sake of the production side, but for the exhibition side as well. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) has suggested a films bank. Although I myself am in favour of that, a films bank in a vacuum is of no use at all. No films bank would be justified in advancing money for the production of a film on any terms on which a private bank would not be justified in so doing. Those terms must include a guaranteed release and thus some chance of getting the money back. The present organisation of the industry provides no such guarantee. Unless the necessary release can be obtained from Mr. Arthur Rank or Sir Phillip Warter, it cannot be obtained at all. Although this is a problem of long-term reorganisation, my right hon. Friend may, I hope, be able to devise some short-term scheme to get over the immediate difficulty, and, at least, give the House an assurance that he will, in conjunction with the Films Council, tackle the matter as soon as possible.

12.49 p.m.

Mr. Beswick: I wish to say a word about the committee of inquiry, and the necessity and urgency of setting it up as quickly as possible and implementing whatever decisions it may make, especially in regard to unemployment and under-employment in the film industry. There are many people in my constituency, good technicians in the industry, who are simply unable to understand the present situation. On the one hand we have exhibitors demanding good films, and on the other hand we have the story writers, technicians and producers—we now have even studio space—and yet there is something lacking which prevents one side from satisfying the other. I have been told that 70 more people were dismissed this week from one studio. In other studios in which some of my constituents work, although there have not been any dismissals the employees are subject to under-employment. Technicians do not like that. A good deal was said on Second Reading about the

cost of film production. There is no doubt that, as far as the technician is concerned, the cost of production could be brought down considerably if the amount of work going through the studios was increased. I do ask that my right hon. Friend will treat this matter of underemployment and unemployment as one of seriousness and urgency.

12.51 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: I assure hon. Gentlemen that although my comminations are sometimes rather protracted, my benedictions are always short. We are ending this Bill in an atmosphere which reminds me of a film première. The only things that appear to be lacking—I am surprised not to have received one myself—are a bouquet, and an introduction to one of the leading starlets. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) produced a very curious argument. It was one of those delightful paradoxes which we are accustomed to hear from him in other places. He said that the freeze-up in the exhibition of American films was due to the creaking nature of private enterprise. I should have thought that a tax on imported films of 75 per cent., and a complete embargo on the purchase of dollars by private enterprise, certainly were things which, unfortunately, interfered with the free flow of private enterprise. I may say that, though I am always prepared to take in the most cheerful spirit the paradoxes which he offers me when I am sitting in the front row of the stalls, I cannot exercise the same complacency when they are addressed to me when I am occupying the Front Bench of the House of Commons.
The President of the Board of Trade has met us wherever he could in a very conciliatory spirit. We have all been congratulating ourselves. We on this side of the House congratulate ourselves on the conciliatory spirit which we have shown. We have heard many speeches in which hon. Members opposite have congratulated themselves. I join in both these choruses and add the rider that on future occasions I do not think the President of the Board of Trade can count on our being so agreeable as we have been to him during the passage of this Bill.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. H. Wilson: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) for his kind remarks, and


in noting the spirit of happiness and pleasure which he, in common with many other hon. Members, shows about the passage of this Bill, I would like to say that if the only things he needs to make himself completely happy are a bouquet and an introduction to a starlet, I shall be delighted to arrange that for him at a convenient time. I join with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for the great help and co-operation they have given in getting this Bill through so smoothly. I also wish to thank them for their assistance in improving this Measure. I think—if I may say this with diffidence—that at the Second Reading stage this was quite a good Bill which was well received by the House. I am sure that it is now a very much better Bill.
The Second Reading Debate showed that there was general agreement throughout the House that the main principles were right and that the balance as between the various interests was pretty well a correct one. However, I think that the alterations made during the various stages of the Bill have resulted in a great improvement. The Second Reading was given without a Division, and the other stages also went through in the same spirit. I am glad that it has been possible to agree to a number of Amendments proposed sometimes by my hon. Friends, sometimes by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and sometimes by both working together. There have been one or two difficult and perhaps controversial issues, but they were never controversies which divided the two sides of the House. Sometimes they were controversies which divided different interests in the industry on points of principle about the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act. We were able to get over our difficulties quite satisfactorily.
Some of my hon. Friends have raised a number of points. I am sure that they will forgive me if I do not go into them fully. If I were to give anything like a full answer, I should be out of Order on this Third Reading Debate. I agree with hon. Members that this Bill alone cannot solve either the long-term or the short-term problems. We must look at this Bill against the background of the present difficulties which the industry is experiencing.
A number of my hon. Friends have referred to the necessity for doing something about the financial structure of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) indicated some of the difficulties about that. He will recall that, on the Second Reading Debate, I said that my right hon. and learned Friend and I were going into this matter very carefully to see what gaps existed in the present arrangements in the industry in an effort to ensure full production, and also to ensure a square deal for the independent producers. I said that if we found gaps which could not be filled by existing arrangements, we would take steps to see what ought to be done to fill them. These discussions are in progress, and that undertaking still stands. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough has said, we cannot solve this problem merely by the provision of financial facilities. We must be satisfied that the films will get a showing. Hence, as he agreed, the importance of this inquiry into the exhibition side of the cinematograph films industry.

Mr. Levy: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not implying that the terms of reference to the commission are to be restricted to the exhibition side of the industry?

Mr. Wilson: No. The inquiry will be mainly into the exhibition side. It will be very difficult to go into that without discussing other things at the same time. The main inquiry is into exhibition.
I share the concern of many hon. Members about the present position in the studios particularly where it has resulted, or is resulting, in unemployment or underemployment. This is a paradoxical state of affairs. It is occasioned partly by financial difficulties, which we are going into, and partly by the difficulty arising from the fact that there were stages ready for the production of films when, for one reason or another, the plans for those films were dropped. It was because of the need to secure full production in the British film industry that I established the Film Production Council under my own chairmanship. As soon as we can get over one or two difficulties about the membership of that Council, I want to arrange an early meeting to go into this question in great detail.
The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) referred to the


importance of the film industry in connection with the export trade. Again, I cannot go very far into that subject without getting out of Order. The development of the export trade which many in the film industry are now pushing—many are in America actively engaged in the matter—will be an essential part of any deal which we may succeed in making in connection with the financial problems to which reference has been made.
I join with the noble Lord in giving credit to the film industry for what is being done at a time when there is such a great and urgent need for increased exports. Tribute should be paid to the quality of the films and the energy with which the industry is trying to push them in foreign markets. It is a matter of great importance to the industry itself that the export market should be developed, not only from the national point of view but so that the industry can get some return for the very high costs which they must meet at present. I hope that it will be possible to cut costs to a more reasonable figure, but even if that is done it is still a fact that our home market is restricted when compared with the American market. That places a limit on the earning power of some of our more expensive films.
I would like to go one stage further than the noble Lord, and repeat what I said on the Second reading Debate. Tribute is due to all sides of the industry not only for what is being done to push the export trade but for what has been done in the past few years. Special praise is due to those who stepped in during the most difficult wartime years and assisted in redeveloping the British film industry and in re-establishing its reputation for quality, and putting it very much higher than ever before.
I think I have dealt with the main points raised in the Debate. I know the House very much supports this Bill, and I agree with what has been said by many hon. Members. The House has done a fine job on this Bill by improving it, and by acting as a deliberative and legislative assembly on the various points raised. I felt, from the outset of the Committee stage, that I should be wrong to regard this Bill as including serious points of principle, and wrong to insist on sticking to every word in it, if hon. Members could produce a good case and the

general sense of the Committee was in favour of making an Amendment, and that is why we have made an unusual number of changes, because we were convinced by hon. Members that it was right to do so.
The object of the Bill, as it now goes forward, is to give to British film production an opportunity of consolidating the ground which it has won over the last 10 years, and to extend its output to a level on which it can rest securely in the future. During the period of 10 years to be covered by the Bill, we hope its provisions will make it possible for the industry to establish itself on a secure and safe foundation. I will not go into the question whether it will be necessary to have quotas 10 years from now. Let us hope that, in the period of operation of the Bill, this industry, which has gone through so many vicissitudes, particularly in the last 10 years on account of the war and the present crisis, will at last become established on a secure and lasting foundation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (WOMEN'S SERVICE) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to raise women's land and air forces.)

1.3 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "women," to insert, "to a number not exceeding one thousand."
This Amendment, I believe, will carry into effect the spirit of the speech that was delivered here yesterday from this bench, which I appear to have usurped from the Leader of the Liberal party. I do not understand why the Liberal Party, in view of the very strong assertions made in this House yesterday in that Debate, have failed to put in an appearance today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who speaks for the Liberal party said yesterday:
Although there has been a considerable reduction in the Armed Forces, I do not believe that the state of the country justifies


us in keeping hundreds of thousands of men in the Armed Forces today. I want to know what the Government are doing to deal with matters which are within their own province."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 605–6.]
I submit that, in demanding a reduction of the expenditure on the Women's Services we are really taking the warning which was given to us yesterday from all quarters of the House that we should exercise due economy in the national expenditure on account of the national emergency.
There was a further speech in yesterday's Debate, a very interesting and important speech by the hon. Gentleman who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for War, and who, I know, speaks with authority on questions concerning the organisation of the War Office. I am sorry the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is not here today, but I submit that, if he were here, he would have no other option but to support this Amendment. The hon. Member said yesterday that we were spending too much on the Armed Forces, and that, I argue, applies to the extension of expenditure which is outlined in this Bill. The hon. Member said yesterday:
Let us just for a moment have a look at the White Paper and the United Kingdom balance of payments for 1947. There is a deficit of £675 million at the end of 1947. Since July, 1945, no less a sum than £1,500 million in dollars has been spent on the Armed Forces, and with what results? The Government chose the policy of guns in preference to butter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 661.]

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir R. Young): The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to quote from Debates on other subjects in the present Session, but must stick to the matter which is before the Committee.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Sir Robert, but I was quoting from that Debate in order to support my argument that a further extension of expenditure on the Armed Forces was unnecessary and undesirable. I bow to your Ruling, and I will not quote any more.
I would like to know something more substantial than the sentimental arguments put forward in this House last Friday by the Minister of Defence and the Financial Secretary to the War Office. In that Debate, we all paid tribute to the courage of the members of the Women's

Services during the last war. Yesterday, I went to the headquarters of the Women's Auxiliary Air Service, and there I saw emblazoned a slogan,—"Courage Is Not Enough." That seemed to me to be rather a new slogan in a military institution, though a very intelligent one. It reminded me of that other slogan to be seen on a London statue—"Patriotism Is Not Enough"—and I think that a further inscription in that case might be—"Patriotism Is Not Enough; I Must Have No Hatred Towards Anybody." If that was the motto of the War Office, we would not be considering this Bill today. We are not entitled at present to demand from the depleted women power of this country the additions to the Women's Services that are suggested and outlined in this Bill, and, by limiting the expenditure and the numbers that can be enrolled under this Bill, we will be doing a really national service in the present economic crisis.
I ask the Secretary of State for War again where we are going to get these women? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises the extent of the demand that will be made on the woman power of our country, and the extent to which other Government Departments are also making demands on that woman power. I have here a report from my own constituency by people who are very concerned whether this new drive in recruiting for the women's Services will deplete the number of women required for the Women's Land Army, and I have a resolution passed by the National Farmers' Union in my constituency.
The farmer who raised this question was very perturbed about the prospects of securing the necessary number of women for the Women's Land Army. He warned the Government that, unless we had the women for the Land Army, the farmers would not be able to get their 20 per cent. increased production. But where are the women to come from in this new drive which the Secretary of State for War suggests? We shall have one Government Department competing with another for these women, with the result that women will be withdrawn from the land where they should be assisting the farmers and their wives who are struggling and striving to increase food production.

Brigadier Head: It is purely voluntary.

Mr. Hughes: Even so, there must of necessity be competition, because there are only a certain number of women, and both Government Departments are going to make demands upon them.
I would like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who I see is present, to the kind of literature being used in this campaign. I have a leaflet here which I obtained from the Women's Auxiliary Air Recruiting Service in Kingsway. It is a remarkable document. In it, we are told that 26,000 women are needed for the Air Force. That means that 26,000 women are going to be withdrawn from useful industrial production at a time when, we are told in the Press, the Minister of Labour is going to Germany in order to arrange for 30,000 German women to be brought to this country to work in our depleted industries. That is sheer lunacy; that is not co-ordination of labour at all. I maintain that the Ministers are not acting as responsible statesmen or leaders; they are merely acting as messenger boys for the brasshats of the War Office. The leaflet sets out the kind of work the women are going to do. They are to be employed as electricians—

The Deputy-chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Bill. He must not give an explanation of what the women are going to do.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Sir Robert, if I transgressed. In one paragraph, we are actually told what Parliament must do. I have heard of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and of all sorts of other dictatorships, but it is something new that this Parliament should be told what to do by the W.A.A.F. I submit that public money is being spent in a useless and extravagant way, that paper is being wasted in printing such leaflets, and that, on the publicity side, somebody's brains could be put to better use. The following is an extract from the sort of literature at present available in recruiting offices for the Women's Services:
In the days when Dickens wrote 'Dombey &amp; Son' women had a very definite, but very limited place in the scheme of things. That place was bounded by the church, the kitchen and the nursery.
It then goes on to explain the economic emancipation of women in a way which, presumably is intended to appeal to young girls in secondary schools. That is how our money is being wasted.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the words in the Amendment which are:
to a number not exceeding one thousand.
He is not at liberty to discuss the pamphlet in this Debate.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Hughes: The relevance, Sir Robert, of what I was saying is that this campaign for more women in the Services is being carried out by ladies producing this kind of literature. However, if I am transgressing the Rules of Order, I will not proceed with that point.
I suggest that, at a time of national emergency, when labour is badly needed on the land, in the factories, and for other national activities, this Bill and this demand are unjustified. We should limit the extravagance of the Secretary of State for War. The Bill does not tell us how many women are required for the Services, or what expenditure is necessary. At a time when Ministers are warning us about inflation and unnecessary national expenditure, this is not the sort of Bill which should come before the Committee. Therefore, I consider that my Amendment is a perfectly reasonable one.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has not adduced a single argument in support of his Amendment. He has played all round the wicket, and, when he did indulge in a little bowling, it seemed to be body-line bowling. He must surely be aware—for presumably he has read the Bill, and heard the Debate last week—that this Bill has nothing to do with recruitment at all. It has, however, everything to do with raising the legal status of women in the Forces. Indeed, that is our primary concern in the submission of this Bill. My hon. Friend appeared to be arguing that, at this time, it was quite improper to seek to enlist women into the Forces. But that is not his reason for presenting this Amendment. He is usually accused of being sincere. Why not be sincere on this occasion, and tell the Committee quite frankly that his reason for objecting to this Bill is that he is against the existence of an Army, an Air Force and a Navy altogether?

Mr. Hughes: I made that point perfectly clear in the previous Debate. I understood that on the Committee stage we


should deal with the details. There is no doubt as to where I stand in this matter. I was trying to keep in Order by dealing with the Bill in detail.

Mr. Shinwell: Precisely. My hon. Friend has confirmed what I said; there is no dispute at all. But, if he is against the existence of the Forces, and wishes to abolish them altogether, then, clearly, there is no validity in the argument he now presents that his reason for the Amendment is because he wants to conserve manpower. That is not his reason at all. In any event, even if it were, the argument has no validity, because, as I shall show, in maintaining the women's section of the Forces we are, in fact, to the extent that we are able to obtain their services, conserving manpower. The women are employed in various administrative tasks, and, if they were not so employed, it would be necessary, for purposes of efficient administration, to employ men. In the measure that we employ women, we do not require to employ men. That is the position.
Much that my hon. Friend said might be quite relevant when we come to the Estimates, when he can argue whether we should employ 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000, as the case may be, and upon what tasks they are to be, or are, employed. The Amendment has nothing to do with raising the legal status of these women. My hon. Friend is asking that we should restrict ourselves to 1,000, but there is no magic in that figure. Why not 100, or even ten? The figure is obviously quite meaningless. The Amendment is quite unacceptable, and I ask the Committee to reject it.
I wish to take the opportunity, because this seems as good a time as any, to announce, in accordance with the promise I gave when we were discussing this Bill on Second Reading, the new titles for the A.T.S. and the W.A.A.F.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that this statement should be made on the Question, "That the Clause stand part."

Mr. Shinwell: In that case, I will defer my announcement until later.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps I may now take the opportunity to announce that we have received the Royal Assent, and it is proposed that the A.T.S. should now be designated the "Women's Royal Army Corps," and in the case of the W.A.A.F., the "Women's Royal Air Force." We had prolonged discussions as to suitable titles, but we came to the conclusion that these were the most suitable.

Earl Winterton: May I say on behalf of my hon. Friend that these seem very appropriate terms, and that we are entirely in approval? I am glad that the rather frivolous suggestion made in some quarters for another name was not adopted.

Brigadier Head: I also should like to say how pleased I am that these titles have been conferred on the Women's Services, and to congratulate the Minister on his great acumen in avoiding the trap of calling the A.T.S. the "Royal" A.T.S. with the consequent difficulties involved in the shortened title.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Application to women of the Army and Air Force Acts, and interpretation and adaptation of those and other enactments.)

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, after the first "as," to insert, "or as having been."
This is a drafting Amendment, and seeks to safeguard the interests of women who have served, are serving, or will serve in any of the Services. The male members of the Services are entitled to certain benefits which apply equally to those who have already rendered service. It is proposed, in order to avoid any ambiguity, that this Amendment should be included in the Bill, so as to provide equal benefits for women members of the Services.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no Court Martial shall impose a sentence on women of imprisonment in a Military Prison or Detention Barracks.
I suppose that we shall now have to call these barracks, if they are to be


established, "Women's Royal Detention Barracks." My purpose by this Amendment is to clear up the ambiguity following last week's Debate. On that occasion, there was disquiet expressed about the possibility of women being tried by court martial and being sent to a military prison or detention barracks. I realise that the Secretary of State for War was in a more amenable mood then, but I hope that we shall get some satisfaction with this Amendment. I want it to be made perfectly clear in this Bill that no woman shall be liable to be sent to a military prison or to a detention barracks.
I accept what the Secretary of State for War said last week, that there is no question of sending women to the "glasshouse." I am very glad to hear that, because there has been a tendency in recent times to whitewash the "glass house," which remains substantially what it was in the 1914–18 war—it is about the biggest possible hell on earth. I want the Minister to give effect to the spirit of his reply last week, and to make definite provision that no woman shall be subjected to the sort of military discipline that men have had to undergo in the past two wars.

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot agree to insert these words, but it may be possible for me to satisfy my hon. Friend if I make a brief explanation amplifying what I said On this subject last week. When women become members of either the Army or the Air Force, they will be liable to be tried by court martial, in the same circumstances as soldiers and airmen, according to the Acts which govern discipline. Hon. Members will recall that I also said that courts martial would no doubt pay regard to sex in considering any sentences to detention. The building of special detention barracks for women is not contemplated. In our judgment there is no need for such barracks, at any rate for the time being.
There is no intention to convert any existing barracks or any part of them for women. In the absence of separate detention barracks for women, any woman who is sentenced by court martial will serve the sentence in the barrack detention room at her station, or in the absence of that in the detention room at a nearby station. It is hoped to issue administrative instructions so that sentences are not awarded

of too great a length. We can hardly provide the kind of accommodation which would justify the serving of long sentences. Imprisonment for more serious offences will have to be served in a civil prison. May I add—as I did not have an opportunity of saying anything on this point on the Second Reading—that when a woman is being tried the court martial will contain one woman member, and a woman can be present at the court martial.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: A woman officer?

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: Not necessarily, but it will be a woman. In any event, it is another point; if my hon. Friend objects to the personnel of the court martial he can raise it when we come to the Estimates. A court martial trying a man can include a woman as a member, but she ought not to preside. That is the general position.
Some time ago there was set up the Lewis Committee, to consider procedure in connection with courts martial, sentences and forms of punishment, and, no doubt, when they report—I cannot anticipate their recommendations—they will indicate what, in their judgment, are the most suitable forms of punishment which are appropriate to women, and which may make it unnecessary to provide for periods of detention. For instance, instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment, or detention, a woman might be fined. A sanction of that sort may provide as useful a deterrent as sending the woman to a detention barracks, or to a civil prison. I imagine that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with what I have said. At any rate, our intentions are to deal with women appropriately, having regard to their sex and the conditions of their service. I hope my hon. Friend will not ask me to insert his proposed words in the Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gage: Before we part with this Clause there are some questions which I should like to address to the Secretary of State. On the Second Reading, I expressed certain misgivings about the application of the Army Act to the Women's Services. I believe that


application of the Air Force Act would probably operate similarly because it is a similar Act. In this Clause, it is proposed to make certain modifications and adaptations of the Acts in so far as they apply to the Women's Services, and I would like some enlightenment as to what those modifications and adaptations may be. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are many parts of the Army Act which are entirely inappropriate to the Women's Services. He has only to look at Section 4, where he will see that anyone who:
Shamefully casts away his arms, ammunition, or tools in the presence of the enemy
commits a very serious offence for which the punishment may be death. That cannot possibly be meant to apply to the Women's Services. But some other Sections may apply. For instance, under Section 6 an offence is committed:
By discharging firearms, drawing swords, beating drums, making signals, using words, or by any means whatsoever negligently occasions false alarms in action, on the march, in the field, and elsewhere.
That is a very wide section. Section 6 also states that an offence is committed by anyone who:
irregularly detains or appropriates to his own Corps, battalion or detachment any provisions or goods proceeding to any such force as aforesaid—
that is the Army, or a force co-operating with it—
contrary to any order issued in that
respect.
The same provisions should not apply to any of the Women's Forces. Is it the case that the only provisions of the Army Act which are to apply are those which applied during the war—Section 15 and Section 40?
If Section 40 is to apply I would ask for enlightenment on a problem which troubled those who were faced with it during the war. It frequently happened that a member of the Women's Forces did not do as she was told. To cover that there was an appropriate Section relating to disobedience of a lawful command. An officer would say, "Can this girl be punished under that Section?" and the answer was, "No." But Section 40 looked as though it would apply, because it related to conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline, and covered practically anything from rape to being late on parade. The difficulty always

arose—and I am sure it is still there—over the proviso, which states:
No person shall be charged under this section in respect of any offence for which special provision is made in another section of this Act.
There was, therefore, great difficulty in charging the girls at all, so the whole business was rendered nugatory. These legal difficulties constantly cropped up, and the effect was that the Army Act was practically of no assistance at all in its application to the A.T.S., modified or adapted as it was then. It is therefore important to know how the Government intend to modify or adapt the Act now.
The upper limit of punishment for the A.T.S. was reduced from death to 14 days' confinement to barracks—which was a drastic reduction. I am reminded of the case of the junior member of a court-martial who, when asked by the senior member what he thought the sentence should be, replied "14 days' C.B., Sir," whereupon the senior member said, "Don't you realise that the maximum sentence for this offence is death?" The unfortunate junior officer then replied, "Well, Sir, then let it be death." It was a somewhat drastic reduction, and led to most extraordinary results when a girl absented herself. If she was a persistent absentee a long-suffering officer would eventually say that she would have to be tried. Officers would be brought from important work to the court-martial and the girl would get 14 days' C.B. If she was serving abroad, away from British jurisdiction, and committed a murder, all that could be done was to try her by court-martial and give her 14 days' C.B. If the Army Act had not applied, and the girl had been a camp follower, she could have been tried under Section 41 and, if convicted, appropriately punished.
In other words the application of the Army Act in cases like that had completely the opposite effect to what was intended. These are all problems which, I am sure, the Government has carefully considered. I should, however, be glad to know how they intend to apply this rigorous code of military discipline to a Women's Force, and how they intend to modify it so as to make it fit in with the discipline appropriate to that force.

Brigadier Head: I support the very pertinent suggestions and remarks made by the hon. Member for South Belfast


(Mr. Gage). It seems to me not unnatural that the Government, anxious to get this Bill through, should have inserted this Clause which, in effect, says, "We will get the Bill through, and think again regarding the details, particularly in relation to Clause 3 (2)." I hope that the Minister will give some assurance as to his future intentions regarding these Orders in Council. Subsection (2) states:
His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for adaptations and modifications of enactments appearing to him to be requisite in consequence of the preceding provisions of this Act or of things done there under.
Undoubtedly, the Ministers concerned will find certain matters which will need Orders in Council as experience in this matter proceeds, but I think that it would be most disastrous and difficult for those responsible for the administration suggested in the Bill if it were not the Government's long-term intention to consolidate these Orders in Council and bring them into the Act.
I know from personal experience of the Army Act how difficult it is to deal with all the amendments and Orders in Council, and for anyone taking proceedings it is like setting out on a paper chase. The whole matter becomes extremely complicated and difficult, and, eventually, inoperable. I feel that we on this side of the House will be opposed to this Clause unless we get a definite and categorical assurance from the Minister that it is his long-term intention to bring all these Orders in Council together and incorporate them in a tidy manner within the Act.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not think that the Minister has realised exactly what is contained in this Clause. Hon. Members have pointed out certain anomalies from the point of view of those whose duty it has been to sit on courts martial. I want to put the point of view of people who have been before courts martial. The Secretary of State for War is now in a jam, because he has committed himself against what is called the detention barracks and glasshouse. I would like to know how he is to get out of his difficulty. His suggestion that the courts should send women offenders to civil prisons and into hard labour is merely transferring the problem to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I submit

that in attempting to enforce discipline on the women he will have to reconsider the Army Act.
There has been no argument in reply to the suggestion made last week that the best plan would be to remove the question of discipline out of this Act altogether and apply the same principle as the Navy. If they do not require courts martial and harsh military discipline to get order and discipline in the W.R.N.S., why is it required in the A.T.S. and Women's Air Service? I know that the Minister's intentions are good, and I believe that he is thoroughly democratic in his Bill, but I suggest that he does not realise what he is in for when he is wandering about this bog of military discipline.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: So far we appear to have reached agreement on the main principle underlying the Bill, which is that in the
Army and in the Royal Air Force the women members should be integrated with the male members of those Services. So far so good; but having accepted that principle, clearly another principle must be established: That, in the circumstances of such integration, broadly speaking, similar codes of discipline should apply to both men and women. But as was pointed out on Second Reading, and as I have already said in the Committee proceedings on a previous Amendment, we give the assurance to the Committee that the enactments relating to the provision of discipline will be administered having regard to the matter of sex. I agree that that is a matter of administration. Indeed, in the nature of the case it must be so. It is quite impossible to insert in a Bill of this character precise details indicating the variations in punishment as between men and women. I think that hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate, including the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage), who has a great knowledge of these matters, will agree with me.
I come to the criticism that has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), and, to some extent, by my hon. Friends that we are in doubt as to how discipline shall be administered in the future. In fact, both the War Office and the Air Ministry have reviewed all the statutes relating to these matters. All the statutes known to be affected by the first part of the Clause


now under discussion have been carefully reviewed, without, as may have been anticipated, and, indeed, as the hon. and gallant Member appeared to anticipate, disclosing any statute that cannot be properly applied to women. On the other hand, and this is an admission that I am bound to make, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that, as a result of experience, it may he necessary to limit or modify the operation of a particular statute relating to members of the Women's Service. We have to consider this matter in the light of experience and adapt the administration accordingly.
The only point that remains, and it is familiar to hon. Members because it has cropped up over and over again in our discussions, is whether we should leave the administration to be evoked as a result of Orders in Council. On that, I have to acquaint the Committee with certain facts. Our proposal is to proceed by Orders in Council if necessary. They may not be necessary, but, in the process of such adaptation as may be necessary, we may require to evoke Orders in Council. If that is so, procedure by Order in Council will follow the existing procedure under which discretion to amend the Army and Air Force Acts for application to the Women's Services is delegated to the Army and Air Councils, under Defence Regulations and under Section 176A of those Acts.
The remarkable fact which I will now disclose is that such amendments can be carried out by instructions which are not subject to Parliamentary control. What we are now proposing is that rather than leave it entirely to the decision of the Army Council or the Air Council, these necessary adaptations, in so far as they require Orders in Council, should be subject to affirmative Resolution by both Houses. I imagine that is a considerable advance, and a concession of which hon. Members should fully avail themselves.
As to the kind of amendment which might arise, or the kind of adaptation which may be necessary, as I have already said, it is not easy to specify precisely the nature of these details, but I will give an example. The amendments which are contemplated are largely of a technical and routine nature; for example, the amendment of the word "widow" to read "widower." On the whole, therefore, we consider that it is better to get

the principle agreed on the basis of a short Bill of this character, rather than encumber and prolong the Bill unnecessarily with details of this kind.
I hope with that explanation that hon. Members will feel not only that our intentions are honourable, but that we have adopted the best procedure for dealing with a very complicated matter. At the same time, I am extremely obliged to those hon. Members who have considerable knowledge of this subject for having enlightened us, and no doubt the points which they have raised will be carefully scrutinised.

Earl Winterton: I do not think one could take exception to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. It is only fair to say, not in criticism but in extension of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage), that if we are looking for anomalies in the law we need not look at the Army Act. There are thousands of Acts on the statute book which contain anomalies, and anything more fatuous than many of the Acts applicable to civilians it would be hard to imagine.
In many respects I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we are in a stronger position vis-à-vis this matter, than we are in respect of the ordinary law. The only suggestion I would make is that the matter requires immediate action. Immediate consideration should be given to the Army Act to see what portions of it need amendment in view of the existence of the Women's Services. Not only do I disagree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I also disagree with what I understand to be the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast that this corps should not be under military discipline.

Mr. Gage: I did not by any means intend to imply that this corps should not be under military discipline. What I said was that I thought the Army Act was not the appropriate method of enforcing discipline.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend It is far better to do it through the medium of the Army Act. I can think of nothing more complicated than two Acts, one dealing with the Men's Services and the other with the Women's Services. That would increase the confusion which,


as my hon. Friend says, exists already. The simple answer to anyone who objects to this procedure is that there will have to be an affirmative Resolution. I hope the earliest consideration will be given to this matter so that the procedure shall be brought up to date.

Mr. Shinwell: I can give that assurance at once. Naturally, we shall closely scrutinise these enactments to prepare the way for any adaptations which may subsequently be regarded as necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Right of women to resign from forces on giving notice.)

Women who join the forces under this Act shall be entitled to resign from the Forces on giving twenty-eight days' notice.—[Mr. Emrys Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It has been said that one volunteer is worth ten pressed men, and that should also apply to women. If a woman goes into the W.R.A.C. and, after experience, she decides that it is not her career, she should have the same opportunity of leaving the Service as exists in any other Service. Officers have the right to leave on 28 days' notice, and it is reasonable that a woman should have the same right so that she may take up civilian employment.

Mr. Shinwell: I want to correct one observation which my hon. Friend made. It is not open to officers to resign on giving 28 days' notice. It is a much more difficult proposition than that. As to the substance of my hon. Friend's proposition, it is undesirable to treat women differently from men as regards their discharge. It would be most unfair and inequitable if we allowed women to retire on giving a few days' notice—

Mr. Hughes: I think the men should be able to retire too.

Mr. Shinwell: —whereas men are compelled to remain in the Service. My hon. Friend has given the whole of his case away. He has just interjected that he

believes men should retire if they give 28 days' notice. We simply cannot have an Army or Air Force on that basis. I understand my hon. Friend does not want them, anyway. I must point out that in addition to the principle enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence the other day, in respect of discharge by purchase—we merely postulate the principle; we have not gone further than that at the moment, although we shall in due course—women can be discharged, as can men, on compassionate grounds. On marriage in particular, a woman would be given the option of taking her discharge or continuing in the Service. In all the circumstances, the women will not regard themselves as ill-treated, and I hope with that explanation my hon. Friend will not press this Clause.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State is getting more reasonable as we go on. He is much more reasonable than he was, but he will not always hold his present office. Under this Bill we are giving powers to people who may not share the enlightened view of my right hon. Friend, and I submit that out of all the Amendments which he has rejected, he might accept this reasonably little one.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time" put, and negatived.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS [MONEY] (No. 2)

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made and Question proposed:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period during which payments may be made under the Agriculture Act, 1937, in connection with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and to amend the Horse Breeding Act, 1918 it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums to be paid there nut to defray expenses of the Secretary of State under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

2.1 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I am well aware that this is not an opposed Measure,
but it is slightly unusual, even in the case


of an unopposed Measure, for no responsible Minister to be here. Perhaps the Home Secretary is responsible for it? It is usual for the Financial Secretary to the treasury of the Minister of Agriculture to be here. Even in the case of an unopposed Measure, the Committee expects the Minister to be present to answer any questions which may be put. I did not intend to he rude to the Home Secretary.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Oh no. I apologise to the Committee that one of my hon Friends is not here as the last Business ended a little earlier than was expected. We hoped my hon. Friend would be here, and we are trying to find him. He has now arrived, so I thank the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity of producing him.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I apologise to the Committee. I had gone out of the Chamber to make quite sure that I knew what we were doing about this. In view of that, I hope the Committee will accept my apology.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution reported forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 69, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LEATHER CHARGES (No. 1) ORDER

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

2.4 p m

Mr. Odey: I am very glad to have an opportunity of drawing attention to the working of the Leather Charges (No. 1) Order, 1947, dated 30th December, 1947. As is customary. I must first of all declare that I have an interest in this matter in as much as I am chairman and managing director of the largest group of tanneries in this country. I would have been glad, to take the opportunity of making some of these observations when the order was passed by the House, but partly owing to my inexperience of Parliamentary affairs I failed to do so.
Paragraph 4 of that order says that the amount of the charge payable by any person shall be due and payable on 1st

April, 1948, to the Board of Trade or as the Board may direct. I wish to give the President of the Board of Trade, to whom I am most grateful for being here, the opportunity to make a statement as to what the Government propose to do under the powers they have taken. I will explain the circumstances which have given rise to this order. In 1942 the Government decided to subsidise footwear prices. This was done not by direct payment to boot manufacturers but by the Government taking over the purchase of hides—75 per cent. of which come from overseas—certain semi-tanned skins from India and, at a later date, raw goat skins.
Modifications were made in the prices paid to the Government by tanners for their hides and materials from time to time to allow for variations in the cost of production and to maintain the average marginal profit which tanners were allowed to retain. Owing to out purchasing arrangements with the United States, there was little Change in the level of hide prices until nearly the end of 1946. when quite suddenly there was a very steep increase. At the end of 1947, when the subsidy was withdrawn at very short notice it amounted to as much as 80 per cent. The question which is causing very great anxiety in the industry is what will happen now this order has been put through and the subsidy with drawn.
The order gives the Government the right to levy a charge which is equal to the subsidy on raw stocks and goods in process as at 31st December, 1947, and to order such moneys to be paid over to the Board of Trade as at 1st April, 1948. When I tell the House that it is calculated that there is a total sum of £8 million involved under these charges, it will be appreciated with what anxiety the industry is waiting to hear exactly what action the Government propose to take under the powers they have acquired under this order. It might appear at first glance that, in proposing to recover the subsidy, the Government are merely taking some money that rightfully belongs to the taxpayer. However, the money is not only needed by the industry in order that the industry can be financed at the very high rates at which raw materials are now obtainable but in actual fact as I hope to show, it undoubtedly belongs to the industry and—I hope the


right hon. Gentleman will agree—in no sense "rightfully" belongs to the Government or to the taxpayer.
To illustrate my point, I have taken the trouble to look up one particular parcel of hides which at 31st December, 1947, was lying in one of our tanneries. It was a parcel of dry salted aracaju hides from Brazil. The very extensive schedule comprising part of the order contains over 1,000 varieties of hides, and I pay tribute to those members of the Civil Service who, at very short notice, produced this most voluminous and detailed schedule of prices. These hides were invoiced originally at 8⅜d. per lb., and they are now called upon to stand a further charge of 5¾d. per lb. In other words the original parcel which, incidentally, was invoiced up on the 18th July, 1947, at £1,492, is now called upon to bear an additional charge of £1,058 11s. 6d. The House will bear in mind that when the hides were invoiced on the 18th July last, the receiving firm had no thought that it might later be faced with an order which would call upon that firm to pay this further large sum of money.
Raw hides are purchased by the Government and at the same time corresponding quantities of sole leather bottom leather or upper leather were sold to the boot and shoe trade. The point of my argument is that the general public received the advantage of the subsidy at the time when the hides were invoiced, because the tanners in the country were called upon to sell to the Government at subsidised and fixed leather prices their total production, which corresponded to the quantity of the subsidised hides when received. It is quite fantastic, therefore, to suggest that, now the subsidy is terminated, the general public can hope to receive not only the cheap subsidised leather which they received at the time the hides were invoiced but that they might further expect to recover the subsidy itself, which has already gone into the subsidised leather that was supplied.
In order to convey this somewhat complex position, it is necessary for me to explain the basis upon which tanners trade. In normal times they sell on replacement; that is, when hides go up, they endeavour to advance their prices pari passu, and when hides go down, the

industry reduces its leather prices simultaneously with the decline in the price of hides. This is an important point at the present time because hides are going down, at least in the North American market. I want to impress this upon the President; this subsidy, which undoubtedly belongs to the industry anyway, is ended and it is urgent that the industry should have it, first to continue to finance the purchases of raw material while the present high prices continue and, alternatively, to effect immediate reductions in price as, and when, hide prices decline.
We had yesterday an appeal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to industry to lower prices. If, however; this subsidy is paid over by the trade as a result of this order, the industry will, in effect, cease to sell on replacement but will be forced, with the agreement of the Government on to a cost-plus basis. The net result of this would be that these dear stocks, which stand at an all-time high record for price, would have to be consumed before leather prices were lowered. There is every indication in the United States that the price will fall and that the unfortunate general public of this country will be continuing to pay high prices for leather when they would, in the normal way, have received immediate relief as, and when, the raw hide market declined.
I hope I have made it clear that this industry runs with a constant stock in trade. It has a large stock in process for the simple reason that it is a long process. By the time one allows for buying the hides, and putting them in the tanning pits for a process which takes, in tanning alone, three or four months, and when one has added to that the period taken for shipment of the hides, it is from six to seven months. If our tanning industry is to be forced into a position where it can no longer sell on replacement, what will happen to our export trade? We shall be in competition with the tanners of the United States as regards the products of all these industries, which rely upon leather as their raw material—the boot and shoe industry, the manufactured leather goods industry, the leather belting industry and many others of which leather forms an important part.
What is to happen to all those industries if the tanning industry, by virtue of this


charges order, is unable to meet the competition of the tanners of the United States who are already competing with us strongly? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to make a statement on this matter which will allay the deep and great anxiety of the industry. I am aware that negotiations on this matter have been, and are still, proceeding and I trust that, as a result of the statement which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make, those negotiations will be brought to a successful conclusion, so that the industry may know exactly where it stands and can put its prices on to a proper and satisfactory basis.

2.20 p.m.

Mr. Attewell: The hon. Member for Howdenshire (Mr. Odey) has declared his interest in this subject, and I will declare mine. I am a trade union officer in the boot and shoe industry. I cannot anticipate what the reply of the Minister will be, but there are one or two observations which I think ought to he placed alongside those of the hon. Member for Howdenshire. I fail to see how the tanners have any right to expect that the subsidy the Government have paid on hides should be given to the tanners. If the tanners had borne the cost of the subsidy, they would have a case, but they did not bear the cost of the subsidy, and it is far better, surely, that the general public should benefit. The hon. Member said that it had been estimated at about £8 million. I have no firm figures, but I should think that to be a conservative estimate. I have heard estimates of £12 million. I can understand the smaller amount being more acceptable to the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I can also understand his plea that the money should be put back into the industry, but I do not think there is any justification for that. After all, private enterprise should stand on its own merits, and not be financed.

Mr. Odey: I think I have shown quite clearly that the money represented by these charges is undoubtedly the property of the industry. I did not think there was any doubt about that, and I hope that when the President of the Board of Trade deals with the matter, he will agree with my view. I want to make it quite clear that the industry do not desire to receive any money which belongs to the

taxpayer, or the Government, or which in any way does not belong to them.

Mr. Attewell: If the Minister is able to inform the House that this subsidy belongs to the industry, I should not object, but my reading of the matter is different from that of the hon. Member. I do not think it belongs to the tanners. I agree that the statement to which reference has been made was at a luncheon, and probably statements at luncheons are different from those which would be made on other occasions.
I imagine that the reason why the industry desires to retain the subsidy is in order that that amount of money might act as a buffer to prevent the losses the industry suffered after the 1914–18 war. It is as well to remember what happened after that war, and compare it with what happened after the recent war. The hon. Member for Howdenshire stated that his own firm lost approximately £1 million. That is a terriffic amount of money for a firm to lose. It was also stated that the firm never paid a dividend for 15 years following the 1914–18 war. Because of the excessive losses of that period, it is suggested that the money now allocated to subsidy should be used by the industry as a buffer. As an hon. Member sitting on this side of the House, I do not think we should subsidise private industry at the expense of public money.
Is it not a fact that immediately following 30th December the prices of leather in stock were made higher? Prices jumped up overnight to the equivalent, as near as it is possible to judge, of the new prices. Different tanners made different prices. One can understand that, as there are a number of small businesses. It is estimated that the price of leather rose 50 per cent., 80 per cent., or 100 per cent. As a consequence, the price was increased to every buyer of leather, and I have seen costings which were increased 100 per cent. on the prices in invoices of about 15th, or 16th, December, thus proving that the tanners increased their prices to the cut sole manufacturers. There are also tanners who cut soles as well, and that part of the problem should he particularly watched by the Minister. The price of leather has been increased to the equivalent of the subsidy and the result has been that repairers objected to the amount of money which it was agreed should be scaled up.
I want to see the products of our industry "trodden under foot" just as much as does the hon. Member for Howdenshire, but I feel that although we should unite on both sides of the industry and on both sides of the House, in the legitimate demands, we have a right to expect the Government to see that public money is not paid to a body of manufacturers for any potential loss which may come in the future.

2.30 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): In opening this Debate, the hon. Member for Howdenshire (Mr. Odey) has, I believe, just made his second speech in this House. As he knows, I have been wanting to apologise to him for some time for the fact that when he made his first speech it was in a Debate in which I was concerned and I had to be out of the Chamber and missed what I later enjoyed reading. He has been speaking today on a subject which he knows inside out; he has been speaking as an expert, and accordingly he would not expect, in relation to a subject he knows so well, any of the consideration which is certainly due to a maiden speech. I can assure him at once, however, that in view of the kind way he spoke about us, and in view of the facts at issue, I have no intention of disagreeing with much of what he said.
The Leather Charges (No. 1) Order which he mentioned, was made on 30th December last, came into effect on 1st January, and was approved by this House on 4th February. I would like to say a little more about it, to some extent repeating what the hon. Member said, but also filling in one or two gaps. The order imposes a charge which is payable on 1st April on stocks of subsidised cattle hides and skins and certain types of goat skins, sheep skins, tanning materials and extracts held at the end of 1947 by leather producers. These matters have been fully gone into by our officials and have been discussed on many occasions with the hon. Member and other representatives of the industry.
These subsidies, as the House knows, were introduced for hides, skins, tanning materials and leather at various times from 1941 onwards to keep down the price of leather for footwear and repairs as part of the general policy of stabilising the cost of living. The way in which it

worked in general was that the Board of Trade bought these hides, etc., and resold them to the United Kingdom leather producers at a loss to the Board of Trade, but at such a level that leather prices should remain constant, while leaving a fair return to tanners, dressers and extract manufacturers. I do not think that the hon. Member has any complaint about the return during the war or since the war. The devastating things which happened to the industry have by no means occurred in the period during which this Government have been responsible for the welfare of this important industry.
I was much reassured on seeing the statement made by the hon. Member to his shareholders about the extent to which his company has been able, in common with the rest of the industry, to put itself on a sound basis as compared with the difficult position it was in, not only in the period immediately following the first world war, but in pretty well the whole of the interwar period, or at least until the years just before the war. I think it is true, in the case of the hon. Member, that he took over the direction of the company two or three years before the war.
I well understand his apprehension. Hide prices have certainly been soaring to fantastic levels in the course of the last year or two. It would be reasonable to expect, and indeed we all hope, from the national balance of payments point of view, that there will be a reduction, and we would hope in course of time a sharp reduction, in the price of these imported hides. As the hon. Member says, there have been one or two reassuring signs of that in the course of the past few weeks, and we naturally hope that it will continue. But with the industry working, as the hon. Member says, on a replacement basis, that causes problems, and in view of the past experiences the industry is naturally worried about the future. I will say a word or two about that a little later, but there is not much I can say at this present stage of negotiations.
I would first like to turn to the position which has operated since 1st January, 1948. Since that date the Board has been reselling the native and imported materials without loss, and the leather producers have correspondingly been allowed to charge increased prices


for their leather to cover the increase in cost of the raw materials to them. This means that every leather producer's stock of hides, skins, etc., will appreciate in value to the extent of the increase in price on those hides, etc., compared with the previous period. When he comes to sell the resulting leather at the new prices, assuming they are still above those of the earlier period, and these new prices are in course of being checked and are operating at the moment on a provisional basis, this stock appreciation will be realised as an additional profit. I do not think that the hon. Member would disagree when I say that this stock appreciation is very much in the nature of a windfall. The hon. Member did not attempt to contest that.
There were one or two rather controversial passages in his speech, as for example, when he said that this £8,250,000 should be regarded as belonging to the industry. That is a debatable matter. He said also that we must think not only of the increase in price but of the decrease in prices which we all hope and expect may be coming. Certainly, what has so far happened has made a windfall profit for the industry from material which it is agreed was bought with public money and which was resold at a loss to the Treasury. I am quite, sure the House will agree that I should not be discharging my duty to the taxpayer if I allowed those windfall profits to be retained without question—profits which had been made at the expense of the taxpayer.

Mr. Odey: The right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that at the time when the Government paid the subsidy on the hides the general public, through the Government, received an equivalent amount of subsidised leather? That is an important point.

Mr. Wilson: Yes. I do not in any way deny that. The actual subsidy was certainly passed on to the consumer of the footwear, but these windfall profits are coming, I agree, not from the payment of the subsidy, but through no virtue on the part of the industry. They are arising simply out of the fact that materials bought with public money are now commanding a higher price.
The only important point between us is what is to happen when these things

have to be resold at a lower price than at present. I do not think that the industry has yet shown any signs of making a loss on the prices it is getting for the leather. Indeed, the increase in leather prices since the controls were taken off, if I may use a phrase which is not quite correct, is, in the case of shoe repairers, somewhat embarrassing to them. I agree with the hon. Member that the problem will come when, on the hides replacement basis, the price has fallen considerably, as both the hon. Member and I hope it will.
To deal with the present situation, in which prices are much higher than when these stocks were laid down, it was decided to collect the appreciation in prices by statutory order for the benefit of the taxpayer. We realise that the leather producers and extract manufacturers may need some protection against stock losses in future. Discussions are proceeding about that between the Board of Trade and the industry. It is an arguable question as to how much protection they will require. One of the things we have to argue about is how much we expect the price to fall. It is by no means acceptable as a first principle that the whole of this money will be needed to be set against stock losses.
All leather producers were requested to take stock on 31st December, and stock returns are now being obtained by the Leather Control to serve as a basis for calculating the liability of any individual tanner. This order does involve very big charges and it is only right that the House should go into the matter. The hon. Member quoted the figure of £8 million. Our own estimate is £8¼ million, but we do not need to argue about the odd quarter of a million pounds. Whether it is £8 million or £8¼ million, it is certainly a very big figure. I think I have made it clear that the money was raised as a result of the appreciation in value of stock paid for with public money.
I accept the hon. Member's point that subsidies have already been passed on to the consumer, but we do not feel that it is right that those profits arising out of stock appreciation should automatically accrue to the industry, the more so as it was realised as a result of the movement of prices during the period of national bulk purchase. What we do accept is that there will be falls, and it will be necessary to help the industry


to get over those periods. There are discussions going on between the industry and the Board of Trade about these future stock losses, and it will depend on what happens in those discussions. It is possible that the full £8¼ million may not accrue to the Exchequer.
I think I have given a general interim report on the matter, and I hope that the general nature of the reply will satisfy the House as to the reasons why we are dealing with the order in this way. I entirely agree with the main points raised by the hon. Member, which cannot be dealt with until negotiations now going on are completed. I have no doubt that the hon. Member will keep in close touch with the negotiations, and that there will be opportunities for further discussion.

2.43 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford): The whole House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the very friendly and temperate way in which he has answered the hon. Member for Howdenshire (Mr. Odey) who is to be congratulated on having, in an entirely proper fashion, raised a matter of such considerable national importance. As the order has been passed by the House we are not in a position to draw attention to its merits. May I say, however, that it was because a Select Committee drew attention to the order, which involved limited retrospectivity, that some of us were interested in it and began to examine it. The full value of the subsidy has been given to the country in the form of cheap leather prices, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, that, in the minds of many of us, the stock appreciation would have occurred anyhow, whether raw materials had been subsidised or not. It is not in consequence of the subsidy. That should be borne in mind. It is quite right to suggest that the appreciation in value can form a necessary cushion for future loss in price.

Mr. Attewell: I agree that the public have had it. What I am saying is that it was not the tanners who gave it to them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was certainly the skill and enterprise of the tanners which have provided the public with cheap leather goods at a crucial moment in our history. The main thing is that this order

does introduce a strange and singular commercial practice of raising the price to someone who has already paid for it because of the rise in world prices and materials, which had nothing to do with the subsidy that has been paid. Yesterday we heard a speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he asked for co-operation between workers and employers and the general public. There can be but one answer from patriotic citizens to a speech of that kind, but cooperation is a two-way term. It demands, also, that the Government should take the industry into their confidence. It was at the height of negotiations, and without the knowledge of the trade, that this order was issued. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he reminds his Department and his colleagues that in what we hope may be a new spirit in industrial production orders of this kind should not be peremptorily presented to the House while there are negotiations with important firms, large or small.

Orders of the Day — BUILDING INDUSTRY (APPRENTICES)

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Marples: I wish to discuss the question of the future of apprentices in the building industry. This is being raised for two reasons, firstly, for the future of the apprentices themselves and secondly because the industry cannot survive unless there is an adequate flow of apprentices into it. There is a great danger apprentices may leave the industry. Apprentices are apprenticed to the industry, normally speaking, for five years, probably between the ages of 15 and 20 or 16 and 21. That is an age when they can imitate and learn. It would be useless to train an apprentice later than that age. If he leaves the industry, because there is no work for him, he will not learn another trade but will become just another unskilled labourer. That would be disastrous.
At the present moment the industry is composed of craftsmen, some of whom are rather elderly. No apprentices came into the industry during the war years or, at all events, only a few, so there have been something like eight or nine years with no flow of apprentices coming out as craftsmen. I am in the industry myself and I want to issue a solemn


warning from my own experience. Unless this Government use their immense powers wisely, in order to really train apprentices, there will not be sufficient craftsmen, from 1950 onwards, to build the houses which the country requires. I would pay a tribute to the Ministry of Works, which has been reasonable in most building matters and co-operates with the industry to the best of its ability. Nevertheless, the Government, and the public, must be warned that, unless this apprenticeship problem is solved there will never be the houses that are required, and some people will be forced to continue to live in squalor. Large numbers are living in appalling conditions and may have to continue to do so.
Now I want to deal with arrangements made in the past for apprentices. The whole of the information about apprentices is contained in three reports of the Building Apprenticeship and Training Council. The first was issued in December, 1943, the second in December, 1944, and the last one in December, 1946. Those three reports were issued by the Council under the Chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. The Council consisted of representatives of employers and operatives, together with representatives of professional institutions and of the Government Departments. I think a sincere tribute should be paid to the Chairman for the excellence of his chairmanship, and for the three superb reports produced.
An analysis of the three reports shows certain conclusions were reached. Let me take first, the number of apprentices needed. The trade required 625,000 craftsmen, and their average age would be between 16 and 24. The wastage of those craftsmen each year was in the nature of 4 per cent., which meant that wastage must be replaced by apprentices. Four per cent. of 625,000 amounts to 25,000. This is the wastage. Therefore 25,000 apprentices are needed in a year just to maintain the present number of craftsmen in the industry. Having reached that conclusion, the report laid down three schemes whereby apprentices were to be recruited.
The first one was the Apprentice-Masters scheme, the second was the ordinary method of indenturing people to contractors, and the third was the vocational

training scheme of the Ministry of Labour. The Apprentice-Masters scheme was a scheme whereby houses were to be built, not for the primary purpose of providing houses, but for the purpose of training apprentices. Providing houses was secondary to the consideration of training apprentices. The main object was to train apprentices. In order to do this they had one craftsman to six or 12 boys, dependent on the particular type of training. Under ordinary indentures there are four craftsmen and one apprentice; but under the apprentice-master scheme there is one craftsman and anything between six and 12 apprentices. Obviously, such houses cost a great deal more. At that youthful age, the boys do not work quite as fast as they might do. They are not unnaturally thinking more of other things, such as cinemas and girl friends. The excess cost of these houses was to be paid by the Ministry of Works who would recoup the money from the Treasury. That scheme was designed to take in 10,000 apprentices and it was to be financed by the Treasury.
The second main method of recruiting apprentices is ordinary recruitment, whereby firms of contractors sign an indenture with apprentices for five years. The Council seemed worried about this method in present circumstances. It said that employers would not take apprentices unless they knew that they had sufficient work ahead. So this formed one of the recommendations of the Building Apprenticeship Training Council. They wanted a guarantee of sufficient work. They also said that the proportion of apprentices to craftsmen should be increased immediately after the war in order to help the scheme. They made two recommendations. The first, to the Ministry of Works, was that any licences granted should impose a condition that the person building should employ a certain number of apprentices. That was to be incorporated in the licence as a condition to encourage the employment of apprentices. Has that suggestion been carried out? I am sorry that I did not give notice of this question, but I would like the Minister to say whether the Ministry have issued licences with a condition that employers should employ a certain number of apprentices.
The third main scheme suggested by the Council was the very expensive vocational training scheme whereby the Ministry of


Labour had 83 centres. From 2nd July, 1945, to 17th November, 1947, something like 50,000 men from the Forces were trained. While the Ministry is to be praised for training these men and giving them every chance, I. think that this scheme will prove, in the end, to have been very costly. As I will show, these men, after having been trained, are not able to find work and they are leaving the industry.
What is happening to these three admirable schemes? Under the Apprentice-Master scheme in London alone there are 513 apprentices employed on 23 schemes. Some of these schemes have been delayed because the Treasury have prolonged the negotiations in regard to the granting of money. What will happen to these apprentices when the work is closed down while the long negotiations go on between different Government Departments? Recently I brought to the attention of the Ministry of Works a case of delay in my own constituency, and the right hon. Gentleman acted fairly quickly. Even then, there had been a delay of almost three months during which time the apprentices were out of work. One cannot keep a boy of 18 or 19 out of work for three months and still hope that he will remain in the building trade.
The first reason why the Apprentice-Master scheme may break down in practice is because the Treasury will not pay the excess costs which they agreed to provide quickly enough. I want to know how the negotiations are proceeding now. Is the Treasury paying the excess cost—because these are costly houses—or is it going to abandon the scheme and let the men go to some other industry? I must express my astonishment at the reply which the Minister of Works gave to a Question in this House last Monday. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no information of any serious matter arising in respect of lack of work for apprentices. He added:
… the number of apprentices so far have been below the number necessary to maintain the numbers in the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th Feb., 1948; Vol. 447, c. 8.]
I want to show that the Minister has got hold of wrong information. At the moment employers are not able to find sufficient work for apprentices. I will

give three specific examples. In the first example I must declare that I have an interest in a building firm. My firm has 40 apprentices. On one site, we have 10 apprentices in a total labour force of 18. The apprentices do not learn very much from the craftsmen when the proportion is like that. On another site, we have seven apprentices out of a total labour force of 12 men. These 40 apprentices will find, in the near future, that they have not sufficient work to do. By the end of this month about 35 of them will have no building work in London so that they cannot be taught their trade. What is an employer to do with those 35 men if he has no work for them?
It must be borne in mind that the indentures are signed for five years and can only be broken by going to a committee and giving reasons. As far as I can see, a firm has two alternatives. The first is to break the indentures. In that case an apprentice may have done three years apprenticeship and then be thrown out of work. He will be on the streets and eventually he will become an unskilled labourer. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that these boys will go into agriculture, or something like that he is mistaken. They will not go into another trade. The second alternative is to pay out £100 a week in wages for these apprentices for a year or so during which time they will do no work and get no training.
I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that this situation has arisen, and if he wishes I will send him details. What am I to do as the employer of 35 apprentices for whom I cannot find work? It is not unreasonable to ask the hon. Gentleman to answer that question. A number of economists consider that building labour is mobile: it is not. Building labour is about the most fixed labour in the country, with the possible exception of agricultural labour. To provide work for these London apprentices we offered accommodation at Brighton—a desirable seaside resort where many excellent conferences take place—to the 40 apprentices. At Brighton they would have been able to have excellent technical training. Only two of the 40 boys volunteered to leave home. The other 38 would not budge an inch. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can move building labour about the country he is very much mistaken. That is my first example of


where the Ministry of Works is wrong in its ideas that there is plenty of work for apprentices.
The second example concerns a constituent who asked my advice last Saturday. He is a youth of 22. His history is that in 1940 at the age of 15 he was apprenticed as a bricklayer. In 1943, aged 18, after three years in the trade, he was called up to the Army. In August, 1947, aged 22, he was demobilised. So in 1947 he still had to serve two years of his apprenticeship. Since August, 1947, until now, that man has worked for only eight weeks in the building trade. He has been unemployed for the rest of the time, and he came to me for advice last Saturday, asking what he should do. He asked, "Shall I go to sea, or stay in the building industry?" He has had three years' training, and has only two more years to go. It is no use the Minister of Works saying that the trade is not finding a difficulty in finding work for apprentices at present; it certainly is, and particularly on Merseyside. This boy wrote to the Ministry of Labour and to his union, and, so far, has received only one acknowledgment. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if I may send him the details of that case, and if he will look into it, so that we may be able to give proper advice to these young boys in order that they might not be lost to the industry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin): indicated assent—

Mr. Marples: The third example where the right hon. Gentleman is wrong is this. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) has passed on to me a thick file of papers, one of which is a letter from the Skegness and District Building Apprenticeship Training Council, to which I have already referred. In the first paragraph of that letter, dated 19th December, they say that this question of apprenticeship was raised because of the inability of a number of local builders to find work for their indentured apprentices, consequent upon the restrictions placed on the building industry and the limitation of licences, both for new building and repairs. Another concrete example from the Eastern Counties.
I claim to have given to the Parliamentary Secretary three specific examples to show that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I am now going to ask a series of questions, of which I gave notice to the Parliamentary Secretary last evening, and, perhaps, I should apologise for the shortness of that notice. First, what number of craftsmen does the Minister anticipate will be employed in the industry in the next five years? In other words, what is the figure of craftsmen in the building industry that the Ministry wants? Secondly, what will be the number of apprentices required to maintain that figure? It is no use having a building force of 500,000 craftsmen unless it is constantly replenished by young people at one end to replace the ageing craftsmen who retire at the other.
Thirdly, will the Minister be able to recruit that number, and, what is more important than recruiting them, will he be able to keep them in the industry and turn them out as craftsmen at the end of that time? It is quite useless having 25,000 apprentices at the commencement of the five year period if we get only 5,000 craftsmen and 20,000 spivs at the other end. It is most important that the Parliamentary Secretary should assure the House that we can provide sufficient work in order to train the new entries into the industry.
Fourthly, what immediate action should employers take if they have not sufficient work for their apprentices? What is the best for the country, for the trade and for the employees themselves? These people have been encouraged to go into the building industry because of the enormous amount of work that lies ahead of it. My fifth question is this. What will be the future of the apprentices if there is no building work for them to complete their training? What is going to be done with apprentices who have served three years, and who are now 18 or 19 years of age? What is the Ministry of Labour going to do about that, and what scheme do they envisage for meeting that situation? Sixthly, I think the Committee to which I have referred has already made three reports, and is now sitting to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decision on cuts in capital expenditure. If so, when will their report be published?
Having asked these questions, I wish now to make a few suggestions to the


Parliamentary Secretary which might help him in this very difficult matter. The first bunch of these are short-term suggestions, because the matter has reached such a pitch that a speedy decision is necessary at this moment, rather than waiting for the correct decision in nine months' time, when the apprentices may have disappeared. The first suggestion is that immediate help should be given to the Apprentice-Master scheme. The second is that immediate help must be given to contractors so that apprentices in the building industry who are under normal indentures shall not be lost because of lack of work.
My third suggestion is, would it not be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to increase the limit on repairs? This limit was fixed on 1st August, 1945 at £10. Since that date, there has been a 36 per cent. rise in the cost of building materials and a 28 per cent. rise in the cost of labour. Therefore, the amount of building work that could be done for £10 on 1st August, 1945, was very much greater than can be done at the present moment. The amount of work which can be done for £10 now is infinitesimal.
Furthermore the small builders, in particular, are having a great deal of difficulty completing the necessary forms when applying for licences. The small jobbing builder is going out of business because he has not the staff with the necessary knowledge to complete the forms. That means that jobbing work is coming to contractors, such as my own firm, because they have the people to fill up the forms, although they really do not want jobbing work. The £10 limit is crippling the jobbing trade at the present time, and could well be relaxed with advantage.
So far as their long-term plans are concerned, will the Government fix a minimum building force below which, whatever happens, the industry will not be reduced, and will they make long-term plans instead of these disjointed efforts for that minimum number of craftsmen? Let them make it three quarters the number we have at the present moment, but let them fix a minimum below which it will not fall whatever happens. For heaven's sake give the industry a fixed minimum to which it can work.
My second suggestion is that, when these capital cuts take place—and it is

obvious that some must take place owing to the general economic situation—the Minister should see that the first consideration is to retain in being a building force which can build after the year 1950. The first consideration in regard to capital cuts should not be whether this or that building should be built because it is socially desirable, and that this or that building should not. It is not a question of social priorities. The first consideration should be whether we can maintain the present number of apprentices, and the cuts should be made, if possible, in such a manner as to maintain a nucleus in being in the building industry.
I have spoken for a long time, and have asked a number of questions. The Parliamentary Secretary always replies very courteously to these Debates, and it would be improper if I did not congratulate his Ministry upon trying very hard to meet this difficult situation. But the building industry has been battered from pillar to post by the disjointed efforts of the Minister of Health. It lies in the power of the Minister of Health to ruin the industry in such a way that it will be useless for the next 10 years. Without care it can be smashed beyond repair within the next two years.
I wish it to go on record that I, personally, am very worried about the future. If we are not careful, the people of this country will never be housed, because we cannot have a planned boom and then a planned slump. The Minister of Health used to grumble about private enterprise and the old economic evils between the two wars, which brought boom and slump. But they are nothing to what he has done to the industry and when he comes forward with his dialectical skill and casts aspersions on the building industry, it is really adding insult to injury, because he is far more responsible than his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works for the disturbance to that industry by creating a boom and then a slump. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to stand up to the Minister of Health. Let us have capital cuts, but let us have them so that the building industry will not be completely ruined.

3.10 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) has said he is worried about the future. Maybe he is worried because,


as he says, he thinks that the next Government will be formed by Members of the Opposition. I cannot agree with the hon. Member when he moans and complains about the harm my right hon. Friend may or may not be doing to his industry. His industry has done a lot of harm to me. It cannot even put in plumbing which will not make a noise. Whenever I stay in a hotel in any part of England, I find that the plumbing is such that if some one turns on a tap in one room, you hear the noise in all the others.
I was once the editor of a trade journal connected with the building industry. It had a large circulation, which it secured by making a feature of question's and answers. The editor did not answer these questions, but paid experts to do it. I saw these queries as they came in, and I was impressed by the the state of near illiteracy among craftsmen and apprentices in the building industry. I cannot help contrasting the amount of technical training that apprentices receive in the building industry as compared, for example, with the engineering industry. I found that employers of labour in the building industry were indifferent whether the boys went to, evening classes or not.
I formed the impression that it was the exception for a building trade apprentice to have anything like a long and comprehensive course, in theoretical subjects in evening classes, or, still better, in day classes during the employers' time. One would have thought that at least one day a week would have been utilised for this purpose, as is done in the case of the enlightened engineering industry. No boy should finish his apprenticeship in the building industry without having a really comprehensive knowledge of such subjects as practical mathematics. Every boy should be able to use a slide rule and logarithms just as he uses his A.B.C.
I feel that there is a gross and serious neglect in the technical training of these boys. Whose fault that is I do not know, but I place on record the conclusions I have reached from my contact with the industry. The theoretical course for every apprentice should be very wide, and should include a certain amount of art and design. It should even include subjects which hitherto have been reserved for architect students. I believe that if the Parliamentary Secretary will look into

this question of apprenticeships, he will find that there has been indifference in the past on the part of the young men, and culpable indifference on the part of employers generally.

3.14 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) on the question of apprenticeships in the building industry. He appealed for a degree of stability in the labour force in the industry, and asked that the intake of apprentices be regulated so as to supply the industry in future years. I thought that he was rather inconsistent, because he subsequently alleged that the Minister of Health was likely to pursue a policy which would very seriously jeopardise the stability of the industry. I would like to remind him that the Minister of Health is pursuing a policy which will stabilise the building industry for many years to come. Already, he is stabilising the industry on the basis of 260,000 houses at present under construction, with a further 90,000 in the tender stage, and he proposes to stabilise the figure at a minimum of 140,000 dwellings per annum thereafter.

Mr. Marples: if we are to have this great stability from the Minister of Health, would the hon. Member reinforce my plea that the Minister of Works should maintain a minimum number of craftsmen and let us know what that number will be?

Mr. Sparks: As the building industry is to be stabilised at a certain minimum figure I think that will give the Minister of Works an excellent opportunity to stabilise the number of apprentices and trainees. I disagree, however, with the inference of the hon. Gentleman that the policy of the Minister of Health is likely —as, I think, he said—to destroy the proper functions of the industry in the next few years. I think the hon. Member is wrong in that conclusion, and that my right hon. Friend is laying down a basis of stability which will considerably assist the recruiting and training of apprentices in the years to come.
The hon. Member spoke of having a minimum building force, below which it should not fall. I believe that the Minister of Health is aiming towards that object and, in co-operation with the


Minister of Works, will meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes in this matter. The industry is to be stabilised at a figure which is far higher than that which existed between the two wars, and I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the proposed basis of stability by the Government is a good one, and will lead to good results.
On the question of apprentices and trainees, I remember, some time ago, visiting a housing scheme, where I was surprised to find that a number of trainees had left the job because they found that older craftsmen had not appeared to be willing to teach and show them their job. I do not know whether they were afraid that the younger trainees would be likely to reduce their status, or endanger their standards of wages and employment, but it was most regrettable to find that this had occurred at a time when the industry was in need of the maximum number of men that it could obtain. I appeal to those engaged in the industry to extend a welcome hand to apprentices and trainees who are trying to pick up the essentials of their craft.
It is most important that young men should be encouraged to take the place of the older men as they leave the industry. The only way in which that can be done is by better co-operation between the older men and the younger men who are trying to pick up the threads of their job. I have a great respect for the knowledge which the hon. Member for Wallasey has of the building industry—it is based on practical experience—but he rather spoils it by introducing political prejudice towards the Minister of Health.

Mr. Marples: I suggested that the Minister of Health has it in his power to ruin the industry.

Mr. Sparks: I am glad that qualification is made, but the mere fact that the hon. Gentleman mentioned it appears to indicate to me that he thought the Minister of Health would exercise that power in a way detrimental to the industry. I do not believe that he will. He would be a very foolish Minister if he did. I think that the Minister's policy must be to encourage the development of the industry, if only to prove his success in solving the housing problem. He would be very unwise to follow any policy which would be likely to jeopardise the future

of the industry. I think the hon. Gentleman's fears in this respect are unfounded, and he will find that, eventually, the Minister's policy will contribute very considerably to the stabilisation of the industry and to putting it upon the basis that we all want. I am sure that, as the result of the course the Minister is now pursuing with regard to the stabilisation of the industry, in a few years it will contribute much more effectively to the solution of our housing problem than it has been able to do for many years.

3.22 p.m.

Mr. House: I would like to deal with the charge made by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) that the present Minister of Health has done as much to damage the building industry as almost any other person. I think that is a very unfair and unfounded statement; it is a prejudiced statement. The hon. Gentleman should know better than that with his experience of the building industry, which is moving along much more harmoniously than during the inter-war years. I need mention only, for example, that the Government have built since the war some 300,000 dwellings of all kinds as against 15,000 of a comparable type following the first world war. That is 20 times more production than was obtained under similar conditions under a Tory Government. That production has been carried through under the most extreme difficulties—the difficulties of the economic situation of the country, of labour and of materials. One should not let that pass through ones mind glibly, because in the period that has passed since the last world war, practically the whole world, apart from America, has been in dislocation so far as industry is concerned.
I think that the achievements by the Government, as guided by the Minister of Health, in the building industry are quite commendable. I am interested in what they have done because I have some experience of the building industry, and I reflect with sadness on the position of the industry during the inter-war years. I remember in 1930 or 1931 attending a meeting of building trade workers in London in the depth of the trade depression of that time. London was the best part of the country from the building industry point of view, and yet the unemployment among the men in the in-


dustry who attended that meeting was 27 out of 28—for every one person employed 27 were unemployed. [Interruption.] I am not saying that the general unemployment was 27 to one, but that the unemployment in London was very bad at that time.

Mr. Marples: Was not that under a previous Socialist Government?

Mr. House: The hon. Member ought to be a little more fair than that. He knows perfectly well that so far as the control of the country was concerned, there has been no Socialist Government prior to the present one.

Commander Galbraith: I think we ought to clear up this point. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the years 1930 or 1931; he was not quite sure which, but at least he will admit that there was a Socialist Government in office in the years between 1929 and 1931.

Mr. House: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his confusion, for trying to clear up the point. He should have listened more carefully to what I said. I said that there has been no Socialist Government in power in this country prior to the present Government. Whether it was in 1929, 1930 or 1931, the fact remains that it was under a Government with Tory control.

Commander Galbraith: Oh, no.

Mr. House: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is afraid to face the hard fact. Lack of courage in facing facts does not help one in Debate. I offer that advice to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Commander Galbraith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not often challenged with lack of courage. I think other hon. Members will agree with me. I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's reasoning at all. It is nonsense for him to keep repeating that a Socialist Government has not been in office or in power or in control of this House before the present Government. It is nonsense, and he should know it. I repudiate entirely the hon. Member's statement.

Mr. House: I appreciate that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is an expert in confusion. He still refuses to face the fact that the power in office at the time was the Tory Party. The hon. Member

for Wallasey is perfectly well aware of the terrible condition of the building trades, particularly in the depressed areas, during those days of depression, as well as in the days of depression between 1922 and 1924, and, in fact, almost throughout the inter-war years.
The hard fact is that having regard to the difficulties which have confronted this Government since the war—the difficulties of shortage of materials and the industrial and economic condition of the whole world—this Government has done much better than anything that has been achieved by the Tory Party in any period in which they were in power. The statement that the present Minister of Health has prejudiced the prestige and the prospects of the building industry is completely unfounded and could not possibly be substantiated.

3.28 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I am absolutely astounded by the remarks that have been made by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. House). They have no relevance to fact whatsoever, and I will prove that to the hon. Gentleman. It is well known to every citizen in the country that the remarks he has made about the wonderful efforts which have been made by this Government in housing the people are quite unworthy. He said that the Government have succeeded in providing 300,000 dwellings of all kinds in a period of some 2½ years. I do not think that is anything to be proud of.

Mr. Sparks: rose—

Commander Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. That is nothing to be proud of when we consider that during the years before the war we were building some 330,000 permanent houses each year.

Mr. Driberg: Not in the first two years after the first world war.

Commander Galbraith: Hon. Members opposite always like to go back to the first two years after the 1914–1918 war, but they do not tell their audiences the conditions existing at that time, which have no relevance whatsoever to the conditions which were inherited by the present Government.

Mr. Sparks: Conditions then were better.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) says that conditions then were better. Let me remind him of the condition of housing in 1914 when the last war but one broke out. I do not suppose he is aware that in one of the most overcrowded cities in the country, Glasgow, there were 19,000 empty houses at that time.

Mr. House: Who built those slum houses in Glasgow?

Commander Galbraith: That is another kind of statement that people make from absolute prejudice. Does the hon. Gentleman maintain that anyone ever set out to build slum houses?

Mr. House: Yes.

Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Member will only use his commonsense, he will see that no builder ever set out to build slum houses.

Mrs. Nichol: rose—

Commander Galbraith: I will not give way. The hon. Lady can speak later. To prove my point, I have known places which throughout the whole of my life I have regarded as slums, and yet recently I have seen references in the public Press in connection with demolitions to the effect that that type of house was considered the finest advance in modern housing when it was built.

Mr. N. Smith: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, has this anything to do with the training of apprentices?

Mr. Speaker: This has not been within my control. The Debate started on apprentices and has now got a little bit wider.

Mrs. Nichol: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) say that the houses which were built on the back-to-back principle, with no indoor sanitation, with two rooms up and two rooms down, with no through arrangements, no back door, and built in rows and in hundreds, were not slums to begin with?

Commander Galbraith: We could go back over some hundreds of years. The hon. Lady will agree that the kind of houses built then are not suitable in modern conditions. I doubt very much

whether the type of house to which she has alluded has been built within the last hundred years. I believe that if the hon. Lady will be good enough to inquire into it, she will find that my statement is more accurate than hers.
The point is that an attempt has been made to divert this Debate from its proper subject, and I am replying to complete misstatements which have been made. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras has been trying to prove that this Government has been doing very well. He referred to what happened at the end of the last war but one. The conditions which existed in 1919 and 1920 have no connection with the conditions existing in 1945. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1939 we had approximately one million men in the building industry. The industry had been building 330,000 permanent houses a year.

Mr. Sparks: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that they were not available in 1945?

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman will know that the whole of the organisation was there to be built up. That was something which did not exist in 1920. In fact, the building industry had been running down in the years immediately before 1914 and required to be built up again. In addition to that, there was nothing like the urgency for houses in 1918 that there was in 1945. We had had a cessation of building for a period of about four years instead of a cessation for six years during the last war, and we had not the damage from the effects of the war which we had in 1945.
When hon. Gentlemen claim that this Government has done very well, and that the Minister of Health is not running down the industry today, I cannot agree. Due to the complete unbalance of the building industry into that which it has been allowed to get by the present Government, we have some 250,000 houses in various stages of completion, If I understand the Minister of Health aright, it is his intention to complete these houses before doing anything else and, in the meantime, to reduce the level of the annual rate of construction to 147,000 houses a year.

Mr. Sparks: That is a minimum.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman can call it a minimum or what


he likes, but that is the figure which the Minister put. I would like hon. Gentlemen to consider what the state of the building industry will be if we are to have a minimum of 147,000 permanent houses a year. Let hon. Gentlemen consider the difficulties there will be—nay, the impossibility, if building gets down to that level, of building it up again to a level where we can build some 300,000 houses a year, which is the minimum requirement of this country; indeed, I believe it is below the minimum. I think the Government having set that level of 147,000, is crippling the building industry for many long years ahead, and I do not know if we shall be able to build it up again to a level at which it will be able to produce anything like the number of houses required.

Mr. Sparks: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman believes that 147,000 houses a year to he completed in the next few years is a low standard, can he indicate where the additional materials, such as timber, are to come from in order to increase that number?

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman asks the position in regard to timber. If he will be good enough to go round the timber yards of the country today, he will find that they are all stacked full. The question to be decided is where the timber is to be used. There is plenty of timber in the country at present to build far more than 147,000 a year. But let me take the hon. Gentleman's point. Why is there not more timber available today? Because the Government did not go to look for it in time. That is proved by the arrangements made by the President of the Board of Trade when he was put to it. If the normal sources of supply had been allowed to operate, the shortage would have been discovered far earlier than it was, and would have been provided for.

Mr. Sparks: We want dollars.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman says it needs dollars; is there not timber in countries other than the United States and Canada? A great deal of timber might have been extracted from Germany, if only the right measures had been taken at the right time. There is also plenty of timber in Scandinavia to be bought, and if right hon. Gentlemen opposite had only taken the necessary steps, that timber would have been available

to us also. Indeed, if we can only get a little more coal, there will be plenty of timber coming to us from Scandinavia in the future. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite unjustified in trying to get away from the subject set down for Debate by making statements such as those which have been made today by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras and, to a lesser degree, by the hon. Member for Acton. It has resulted in my having to intervene, I hope with a little effect, and with some desire to correct the misapprehensions held by the two hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred.

3.39 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin): I am sure the House, and those interested in the fate of those large numbers of boys who are being brought into the building industry, will be grateful for the first nine-tenths of the speech made by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) in the course of which he asked me a number of questions which I shall do my best to answer. I think the last tenth has been adequately dealt with by my hon. Friends. If I am asked to assess the relative difficulties which faced the Government after the first world war and after the second world war in the matter of reconstructing our industrial life and securing scarce supplies of raw materials from abroad, I cannot conceive of a student of these matters who would hesitate to affirm that after this war the difficulties have been far greater than after the first.
First I wish to dispose of the not unimportant but less important matters to which the hon. Member of Wallasey directed himself at the end of his speech. I did not quite understand his point about licences. The nature of the scheme proposed by the Building Apprenticeship and Training Council was to attach a training clause to contracts, not to licences. He would find that the problem is difficult. The fact that any contractor could escape from a contract by not recruiting a sufficient number of apprentices to satisfy the clause means that no very practicable scheme of this kind has yet been suggested to us.
The hon. Gentleman also asked what immediate action employers should take who found themselves with a number of apprentices for whom they had no imme-


diate prospect of work. The answer is clear. The employer can either keep them, transfer the indenture or agreement to some other employer who has work to offer the apprentices, or he can apply through the apprenticeship committees to bring the indenture or agreement to an end. If there were any large number of such applications, with the consequences which the hon. Member suggested, and a considerable number of apprentices who have partially completed their apprenticeships, were finding themselves without work or opportunity to continue their apprenticeships, I think that that would be a matter more appropriate to the Minister of Labour.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether or not the Building Apprenticeship and Training Council and the National Apprenticeship Board could be called together and asked to report on the future of the apprentices in the industry. That step has already been taken. The report has not yet been received, and I am not in a position to give the date when the report will be made.

Mr. Marples: I said I understood that they have been called together, and I asked it the hon. Gentleman could give the date and when we could expect them to report.

Mr. Durbin: it is not yet possible to give a date.
The two main questions with which the hon. Member and other hon. Members are intimately concerned are—what is happening to the existing body of appentices in the building crafts in view of the cuts in the building programme imposed by the White Paper, and what steps are being taken to maintain an adequate supply of fully trained apprentices for a longer period of time? Evidence reaching the Ministry, the Building Appenticeship and Training Council and the National Appenticeship Board, does not bear out the rather alarming state of things which the hon. Member has put to me. Of course, I say at once that I shall be delighted to look into all this evidence, and into any particular cases which the hon. Member brings to my attention, but the fact is that no applications have yet been received by the National Apprenticeship Board from any employer for a release from indentures.

That, no doubt, is a tribute to the extent to which masters have felt under obligation to maintain their apprentices as long as they can. It is, however, a startling piece of evidence on the other side.
Nor, so far as I can obtain the figures, is there any substantial increase in the number of indentured and registered apprentices applying for release from their indentures and agreements.

Commander Galbraith: But the hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the harm which is being done to these apprentices by being kept idle, as many of them may be, if the statements which have been made by my hon. Friend are correct? It is a desperate state of affairs, and I am sure that the hon. Member will take that into account.

Mr. Durbin: Of course, but if a boy found himself so discouraged by his experience in this occupation in the course of his training, the inevitable consequence would be that he would apply for release from his indenture.

Mr. Marples: May I point out that in some cases these boys do not necessarily apply for release, they disappear—go to sea or somewhere else? They do not apply formally to the Board.

Mr. Durbin: Yes, but as a measure of the extent to which there is an outflow from the industry I have a concrete figure to give, which is that out of 4,400 registered apprentices in London only 55 applied for release in the second half of last year. That is a very small figure indeed, much below the normal average rate of turnover in almost any occupation or job. From these two lines of reasoning I find it difficult to believe that the whole situation is yet as grave as the pieces of evidence that the hon. Member for Wallasey quoted. May I explain at once that these are not recent figures? They relate to the second half of 1947.
May we turn to the second question, which is what about the future? Is it or is it not possible to maintain a reasonable inflow of apprentices to keep up the size of the skilled labour force which it is anticipated will be needed? That at once involves an estimate of the size of the future demand for apprentices which is precisely the question which I have been asked from both sides of the House. It is not easy to assess this at the moment. It is only possible to say that


it must remain very substantial, for reasons which I shall give in a moment.
If I may follow the figures which the hon. Member for Wallasey quoted, it was estimated at the end of the war that to man up the building industry 625,000 craftsmen would be required, and that it was to be anticipated that the rate of loss would be 4 per cent., giving his figure of an intake of 25,000 apprentices per year. Upon this is imposed the cuts of the White Paper, about which it is necessary to remember two things. Firstly, it is extremely easy to exaggerate their scale. The actual reduction in the rate of expenditure on building operations was of the order of £150 million from mid-1947 to the second half of 1948.
From that, however, it is necessary to make certain deductions as a heavy rate of spending at the beginning of this period was on contracts, etc., arising out of the temporary housing programme. Secondly, a part of the reduction in expenditure is upon road maintenance and not upon what is properly called the building industry. When a full allowance is made for these proper deductions it is found that the reduction in the building industry loss is of the order of 10 per cent. only. These cuts follow from the supplies of scarce materials which were then in sight. I do not wish to refer at any length to the difficulties experienced in that field, either that of making steel available or in securing timber largely with hard currency. There is every reason to suppose that these material shortages will pass, and so it is with a temporary reduction that we are concerned.

Commander Galbraith: When the hon. Gentleman refers to 10 per cent. does he mean there will be an actual reduction of the building labour of 10 per cent., and could he say what the total number would then be? What is the reduction from, and to what figure?

Mr. Durbin: I am pointing out the implications of the cut in expenditure implied in the White Paper, that they are of the order of 10 per cent., and is temporary in nature. From that I am led to conclude that the demand for apprentices, even leaving out the fact that these cuts are probably temporary, is of the order of over 20,000. The arithmetic of the matter is that an entry of 22,500 a year is needed to maintain a force of craftsmen, which is in balance with the

temporarily reduced expenditure—though of course it may be considerably higher than that. This is the nature of the inflow of apprentices to the industry which is necessary to keep the scale of the labour force in balance with the new level of expenditure laid down by the White Paper. It is somewhere near a minimum of between 20,000 and 22,500. That is the scale of the problem which we have to resolve.
To what extent is it being resolved, and what is happening to the inflow of apprentices to this craft-training? The figures on the whole are encouraging. Between October 1945 and September 1946 the inflow was 22,400. Between October 1946 and September 1947 the inflow was 20,100. The main reason for that decline between those two years was the raising of the school-leaving age in March 1947. The most recent figures available, which are for the last quarter of 1947, after the impact of the August crisis was beginning to be felt, show an annual rate of entry of nearly 17,000, and that in a quarter when the number of school leavers is at a very low level. The peak period in the year for recruitment is obviously that quarter which contains the months of July and August. We therefore arrive at what may be thought to be the surprising conclusion that there is no substantial reduction yet in the inflow of apprentices.
I would mention that the present age distribution of the workers in the building industry has undergone a marked change as a result, in part, of the activities of the Building Apprenticeship and Training Council. It is no longer an industry in which the average age is high. Sixty-six per cent. of the men employed are under 40. The whole age balance has been restored as a result of the remarkable success which has attended the efforts to build up the labour force. Han. Members will remember that at the end of the war—whatever the size of the building industry may have been in 1939—there were approximately 440,000 men employed.

Commander Galbraith: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the figure for 1918?

Mr. Durbin: No, I have not got that information with me.
It is impossible to deny that the building up of the force from 440,000 to well over 1 million men in less than two years is a tribute to the energy of the Depart-


ments and the voluntary bodies associated with this work. Without that energy, the remarkable achievement in the provision of accommodation for the people could not have been completed. Therefore, on this matter the conclusion must be that although the age distribution in the industry is now reasonably in balance, a continued inflow of boys is needed and that, by and large, the need is being met.
The last point with which I wish to deal is in reference to the contribution which the Government hope to make towards maintaining these conditions from the point of view of recruitment. I think hon. Members will agree that, on the whole, they are favourable. The hon. Member for Wallasey paid a tribute, with which I should like to associate myself, to the energetic and devoted work of the members of Building Apprenticeship and Training Council, under two distinguished chairmen Sir Trustram Eve, and his successor, Sir George Gater. They have concerned themselves especially with the problem, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith), of raising the standards of the educational provisions for these boys. It is one of the necessary clauses of the agreement approved by the Council, under which some 25,000 boys are registered, that at least one day a week, or its equivalent, should be provided for further education. Many of the improvements in the provisions for technical education are to be attributed to the work of this body. That work will continue.
The Government are making a special contribution, with the co-operation of local authorities, in the Apprentice-Master Scheme. I hear the most widespread and generous tributes to the success and efficiency of this scheme. Two hundred schemes are now going forward, 43 have been completed, and 31 are being extended and further schemes, up to 50 in number, will be sanctioned as they are presented for approval. As the hon. Member for Wallasey knows, the difficulty is that these schemes are expensive. We are taking various steps to bring down the percentage of excess costs from the comparatively high level which it has reached in the last 12 months.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Mr. Durbin: The conclusion of the whole matter is that the building industry is passing through a difficult period, but it is impossible to have capital cuts and not have difficulties in the building industry. These difficulties are bound to have one of their first effects upon the training of boys entering the industry, but, so far as we can see, the effects upon apprentices are not yet grave, and, looking ahead, it is possible to forecast that there will be a sustained and substantial demand for the entry of properly trained boys into the industry. I would, therefore, like to issue an appeal to contractors, to trade unions and to all those persons who are now co-operating in this voluntary machinery, to do their utmost to see that these boys come forward in sufficient numbers, and, having come forward, are given the opportunity to attain the high degree of skill and satisfactory form of work which this industry offers to those who come into it.

Orders of the Day — POLISH SOLDIERS (REPATRIATION TO ARGENTINA)

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: These Adjournment opportunities occur unexpectedly, and I have been unable to notify a number of hon. Members who were good enough to express interest in the matter which I propose to raise. I must start by most warmly thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for coming here at very short notice to answer the Debate.
The case is that of a small number, about a dozen, of Polish soldiers who were domiciled in the Argentine before the war, whose wives and families and whose roots are still there, but who are still, two-and-a-half years after the war, detained in a Polish military convalescent depot in this country, because, and only because, they were unlucky enough to be severely wounded and disabled in the war. On Wednesday, at Question time, my right hon. Friend the Foreign


Secretary referred, in another connection, to the case that has become known as the case of the Russian wives, in which hon. Members in all parts of the House have properly taken a keen interest. The separation of wives from husbands by official action is cruel in effect, if not in intention, wherever it takes place. It is not the monopoly of one hemisphere or one ideology; but there are no political considerations at all in the purely humanitarian issue which I want to raise with my right hon Friend and which he knows so well.
First, I had better emphasise that the domicile of these unfortunate men in the Argentine was a genuine and not a new one. Two of them were there for 14 years before the war, one was there for 12 years, and one had been there for 11 years. One went there at the age of five with his father and mother, who are still there awaiting his return. Secondly, I must emphasise the fact that these men came here during the war as volunteers to join up and tight in the Allied cause. Thirdly, I should like to stress the very sad nature of the disabilities which many of them are now suffering. One of them, whom I have seen, was blinded in the war, and lost one arm and one leg. This, in a sense, makes it an even crueller case than that of the Russian wives, since those who are disabled naturally need the comfort of their families.
Perhaps the hardest part of it all—and, if it were not obvious that there is no deliberate cruelty, one might find great difficulty in expressing what one thinks about it—is that, as long ago as September, 1946, these men were actually demobilised at Greenock, shipped home to the Argentine, kept there for 19 days on board the ship in the port while the immigration authorities argued about their case—and then shipped all the way back to Britain, re-embodied in the Polish military forces, and sent back to the convalescent depot, from which they have never since emerged. That was in September, 1946.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Why?

Mr. Driberg: I am coming to that in a moment, and, in doing so, I must exonerate His Majesty's Government and the Foreign Office, who have done their utmost throughout this long period to persuade the Argentine Government to

take back these men. The reason given at that time, in the first stages of the case, was that the Argentine Government would not take them back because they were disabled. It was feared that they would therefore become a charge on the State.
I would ask my right hon. Friend to make a further and more pressing appeal to the Argentine Government, and, if that does not succeed, and they are still intractable, I wonder if he would consider an indirect appeal of this kind. We have a Legation at the Holy See. Would he consider approaching the Holy See through our Minister there and asking, perhaps His Holiness the Pope himself, to intercede on behalf of these few unfortunate men with the Government of a nation which is, after all, predominantly Catholic.
As I say, this case has dragged on inordinately long. I first wrote to the Government about it early last May. At that time, as I say, the difficulty was that the Argentines would not have them because they would be an expense to keep. But on 15th May last the Ministry of Pensions wrote to these men and gave them the following assurance:
I can assure you that a pension in respect of death or disablement to a Polish national arising in consequence of service under British command may be paid in the Argentine.
So that seemed to dispose of that difficulty.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is that known to the Argentines?

Mr. Driberg: Yes, this is thoroughly well known to all those concerned in the dispute. That is what, in a way, makes it so mysterious. There were other various difficulties. For instance, on 3rd June, the War Office wrote to me as follows:
As discharge for repatriation (and emigration) becomes effective on disembarkation, and these men did not disembark, they were absorbed back into the Polish forces on their return and sent to the convalescent depot near Newbury to await further developments. To enable them to be accepted back into the Argentine they each require a special landing permit, and Headquarters, Polish Resettlement Corps, have written to each of them asking them to make the special application. Three of the eight applications have been received back from the men, and these have been passed to the Argentine Consul in London for forwarding to Buenos Aires for approval.
That was in June last year; yet it was in that month that the Argentine Con-


sulate in London was still telling these men that the authorities in the Argentine would take them back if an assurance were given that their pensions would be issued to them—an assurance also given in that same month.
As a result of this assurance by the Minister of Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to me on 14th July, and said:
To get round this difficulty, we have approached the Argentine authorities … saying that we are prepared to guarantee that the men will be paid a pension by His Majesty's Government on their arrival in the Argentine, and asking for them to be allowed to enter the country accordingly.
On receipt of that letter from my right hon. Friend, I naturally thought that most of the difficulties were over, and, fool that I was, wrote to these men saying that I hoped that they would have no further difficulty and that they would be able to go back to the Argentine shortly. That was in July. But the months wore on, and on 28th October the Foreign Office wrote to me as follows:
Unfortunately, very little progress has been made with this case. The Argentine authorities have been urged to admit the men, but their attitude has been very unhelpful. We have asked our Embassy in Buenos Aires again to press for a reply.
Then, on 24th November, a month later again, the Secretary of State for War wrote me a very depressing letter, saying:
Further representations are being made, but the Foreign Office hold out very little hope that the Argentine Government will be persuaded to relax their present restrictions.
On 6th December, the Foreign Office wrote to say:
The only hope we have of inducing the Argentine authorities to accept any disabled Poles is to show that they are so slightly disabled as to be capable of normal work"—
And so the grounds of objection appear to have shifted—
and to try to persuade the Argentines to consider each case separately on this basis. We are trying this, not only in the case of the eight men … but also in a number of other similar cases. Even so, I very much doubt whether any of the eight Poles will be likely to qualify for admission, and I think that they would be well advised to seek resettlement in the United Kingdom or somewhere abroad other than the Argentine.
Why on earth should they? Their wives and families are there, and there are no over-riding political or national difficulties;

there are no difficulties of ethnography or frontiers, such as are responsible for the unhappy condition of so many millions of people in Europe; and at least displaced persons coming here mostly have their families with them.
Then, just before last Christmas, the voice of the helpless human beings concerned intruded rather painfully. I received from one of them a letter, from which I will read only a few sentences:
I don't know what to think. Is my cause so desperate that there isn't any hope? I left the Argentine in 1943, leaving behind a wife and two children, aged two and three. Taking an active part in the war, I was wounded in the spine at the Battle of Falaise. In consequence I was declared unfit for military duty and unfit to join the Polish Resettlement Corps. I know I am an invalid, Sir, and cannot go back to my profession. I don't know if I'll be able to do much work either. But why, if I am an invalid, am I still kept in the Army, two years after the war? Why can't I go back to my home and to my children who need a father?
How on earth, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, can I answer such a letter? I ask my right hon. Friend to try to give these men a little more hope today, if he possibly can. He himself said on 28th January, at Question time, that this was:
A gross and unusual piece of red tape conflicting with plain humanitarian practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 991.]
I hope he will be able to translate such expressions of feeling, which we all share, into action.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish to support the moving plea which has come from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). We are not pleading with the Minister, because I am perfectly certain that he has done, and will continue to do, all that can be done in regard to this grotesque outrage. What we are doing is to use the machinery of Parliament to bring home to the Government out there what emotions and what feeling this kind of thing generates in this country. I have had something to do with the case of the Russian wives, and while this is not in the same category because, as my hon. Friend says, there is no political considerations of any kind involved, nevertheless, the reaction of the public mind in this country will be very much the same.
As regards the public reaction in the other case, I should like to say this for


the benefit of the Argentine Government, that I can think of no single thing in the whole history of Anglo-Russian relations which did more to damage the Russian Government in the eyes of the ordinary working man and woman of this country, than the compulsory continued separation of these wives from their British husbands, and that the reaction in this case will not be any less serious. I ask the Argentine Government to consider, since they are assured that these men will not be a charge on their Exchequer, as the British pensions will be paid in Argentine, and there is no practical reason whatever for excluding these men, whether they cannot reconsider their attitude and agree to admit them.
I would like to add this: relations between this country and the Argentine have not altogether been too happy, but I am quite sure that nothing could do more to promote good feeling between this country and the Argentine than if this grotesque business were brought to a successful conclusion. I would like to plead with the Argentine Government to do the straight thing.

4.15 P.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) for the courtesy he has displayed towards me on this subject. He has, with great dignity and pertinacity, pursued this matter for many months, and no one in the House or in the Government would wish otherwise than that he should see a successful end to his campaign. I should, however, like to take the opportunity of saying that not all our relations with the Argentine Government in connection with Polish ex-Servicemen have been of this unhappy type. I should scarcely be putting the picture properly if I did not say that under a scheme concluded with the Argentine Government, which will be finished about mid-March, something like 5,000 Poles, with their wives and dependants, will move from Italy to Argentina. Even this month, rather more than, 1,000 ex-Service Poles will move from this country to the Argentine. I should have thought that it was no exaggeration to say that no country has been more helpful in providing normal facilities for these non-British ex-Service men who have no homes and, in many cases, have no nationality left to them.
That, of course, does not influence the sad and protracted case to which my hon. Friend has drawn our attention this afternoon. Eight men are concerned and, as my hon. Friend explained, their hardship was made almost unendurable because they were actually inside the harbour. It is still difficult to explain why visas were issued at this end and a dispute took place at the other end. As I understand it, the Argentine Government are not influenced in this case by whether or not there is a pension, or whether a pension is assured. It is only fair to say that their behaviour, in relation to the other Poles to whom I have alluded, seems to suggest that it is not lack of a pension which has been the barrier.

Mr. Driberg: But surely that was their first objection? I have that in writing from my right hon. Friend's Department and from the War Office.

Mr. McNeil: Yes, I am not for one moment denying that there is a great deal of inconsistency, and there are differences of opinions and statements that are difficult to understand. I should not match my knowledge in this case against that of my hon. Friend, but perhaps I may be the second best informed person in the House on this subject, and I agree that it is difficult to explain why there have been so many shifts and changes. I am informed that the difficulty here is that the Argentine Government have a strict regulation which will not permit them to admit people suffering such disability as would prejudice the probability of them earning their own livelihood. In the interests of accuracy, I would make this point: my hon. Friend said that all the eight men were suffering from injuries or disabilities which they sustained in the Service, while fighting. I am not sure that that is strictly true. I believe that there is one man who has a disability which was not sustained during service. That does not take away from the broad and pathetic picture, which the hon. Member for Maldon has presented. These men have, for the most part, suffered grave injuries in fighting in the Allied cause, and it is those grave injuries which apparently prevent their entering into the Argentine just now.
Whether or not we can persuade the Argentine Government to set aside the regulation on compassionate grounds, I


cannot promise the House. We have made repeated approaches. We made one following the last Question put down by my hon. Friend. We have since then asked our Ambassador to inquire if they are yet in a position to return a reply. I will consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend that we might employ the services of our representative in the Holy See. I am, however, not anxious to adopt that type of method. I am not without hope that the Argentine Government, who throughout all the rest of the piece have displayed a progressive and generous outlook, may be persuaded, because I am sure that they respect opinions from this House, to review the cases one by one. It would be much better and much more satisfactory—and this is the opinion of His Majesty's Government—if they could manage somehow—and lawyers can usually find a method of doing these things—to suspend the regulation in regard to this small block of cases. That we will continue to plead and press them to do. If we fail in that, His Majesty's Government will still plead that they should reconsider the cases. There must be few international transactions with less sting and greater humanity attached to them than this.
I do not know if the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is quite right in saying that so much misunderstanding would flow from continued Argentine obdurateness, but I am quite certain that everyone in this House would applaud the Argentine Government if they would now yield to the call so repeatedly and humanely made by the hon. Member for

Maldon. At any rate, we will continue to give any assistance that we can.

Mr. Driberg: May I ask my right hon. Friend to bear one point in mind, because this will be on record? I mentioned, and he mentioned, eight men, which was the number I originally raised, but I believe that the actual number is 12 or possibly 13.

Mr. McNeil: That is a fair example of the confusion there has been on this subject. At one time there were seven and then I discovered that the number was eight. I will be glad to look at the case made by my hon. Friend that it is now 12. I will try to meet him on that point.

Mr. W. J. Brown: the Minister of State is authorised by me to inform the Argentine Government that whatever they do I will not bracket them with those "scoundrels in Moscow"; but will he also say that the reaction of the British people to what appears to us to be just plain inhumanity is the same in either event.

Mr. McNeil: I was not drawing any kind of parallel. In the case of the Argentine authority, there was and is a regulation which applied to these men from the beginning, but sometimes the very best Government can find excellent reasons for making exceptions to the very best regulation. I hope that this will prove to be such an occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes past Four o'Clock.